Sent from my iPhone
> On 7 Oct 2015, at 18:13, Ferry Huberts <maili...@hupie.com> wrote: > > > > On 07/10/15 18:01, Neil Bartlett wrote: >>> On 7 Oct 2015, at 13:56, Ferry Huberts <maili...@hupie.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Cross-posting because I don't know if the situation/problem below is by >>> design, a bug in bnd, or a bug in SCR >>> >>> >>> I have a R6 component that does >>> @Reference(cardinality = ReferenceCardinality.AT_LEAST_ONE) >>> >>> This appears to not bind new matching services, because the policy appears >>> to be STATIC by default. >> Yes, static policy has always been the default in DS. You can see this right >> back in the very first DS specification found in OSGi Compendium R4.0, >> section 112.3.3: "The static policy is the most simple policy and is the >> default policy”. Also section 112.10 that gives the XML schema, where the >> reference element has the policy attribute defined as: >> >> <attribute name="policy" type="scr:Tpolicy" default="static" >> use="optional"/> >> >> >>> I did expect the ReferenceCardinality.AT_LEAST_ONE to imply >>> ReferencePolicy.DYNAMIC, just like the bnd annotations did. >> Nope. These are new annotations in a new namespace. There is no reason to >> expect them to have the same behaviour as the bnd annotations. > > However, I challenge you to give me _one_ use-case where > ReferencePolicy.STATIC && ReferencePolicy.(MULTIPLE|AT_LEAST_ONE) makes > sense... > That combination _creates_ a timing dependency, services might or might not > be bound, depending on startup order. > You don't need to be dynamic if your reference is greedy. That will eagerly pick up new services as they arrive too, just restarting the component when it changes. > A warning in bndtools like 'you probably meant to use > ReferencePolicy.DYNAMIC' when havingReferencePolicy.MULTIPLE or > ReferencePolicy.AT_LEAST_ONE would be nice IMHO > >> >>> Changing it to >>> @Reference(policy = ReferencePolicy.DYNAMIC, cardinality = >>> ReferenceCardinality.AT_LEAST_ONE) >>> >>> appears to make it work like I expected. >>> >>> >>> Is this by design? >>> >>> Coming from bnd annotations this - to me - seems like another (breaking) >>> subtlety. >> It’s a subtlety perhaps because the standard annotations are just a direct, >> literal transformation to the XML, whereas the bnd ones tried to be “smart”. >> Yes, this is by design. >> >> It’s certainly not breaking because, again, these are new annotations and >> there is no reason to expect them to do the same thing… >> >> >>> -- >>> Ferry Huberts >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "bndtools-users" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>> email to bndtools-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> -- >> Ferry Huberts > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "bndtools-users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to bndtools-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org
