karaf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Tran <dant...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Concern about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-2273 - not backward compatible
Date Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:13:35 GMT
Also, multiple deployment files under deploy directory also missed behave (
still under investigation ).  So I strongly suggest to DISABLE that
configuration at 2.3.x branch

-D


On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Dan Tran <dantran@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi JB,
>
> I tested out 2.3.1 with org.apache.aries.blueprint.synchronous=true
>
> A couple of my bundles fail at start up
>
> Here is scenario ( very high level )
>
> bundle A component A.1 depends on bundle B service B.1 which depends on
> service of bundle C service C.1 which depends on Bundle A
>
> With out the flag, all of these bundles manage to come up
>
> With the flag, I got NPE
>
>
> Caused by: java.lang.IllegalStateException: getService() returned null for
> [com.xxxx.yyyy.ServiceX]
>         at
> org.apache.aries.blueprint.container.ReferenceRecipe.getService(ReferenceRecipe.java:242)
>         at
> org.apache.aries.blueprint.container.ReferenceRecipe.access$000(ReferenceRecipe.java:54)
>         at
> org.apache.aries.blueprint.container.ReferenceRecipe$ServiceDispatcher.call(ReferenceRecipe.java:291)
>
>
> I think I figure out how to get away from cyclic dependencies, I will take
> time.
>
> I also want to raise this issue early so that other users be aware and
> react appropriately ( like disable that flat, at build time or event at
> production/customer site, in 2.3.2 which is not desirable )
>
> -D
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@nanthrax.net>wrote:
>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> It's completely backward compatible normally.
>>
>> Could you explain your issue ?
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>>
>> On 06/26/2013 05:55 PM, Dan Tran wrote:
>>
>>> This new default behavior introduces backward compatibility specially to
>>> bundles that depend on services from each other.
>>>
>>> Can we not apply this behavior to 2.3.x branch?
>>>
>>> I am fine with 2.4 where I will have time to do something about it
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> -Dan
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> jbonofre@apache.org
>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message