karaf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Remove features lifecycle in K4
Date Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:32:42 GMT
With the new features service, these kind of options are more difficult,
because they need to be persisted.
The new resolver works on a known set of inputs and compute the end result,
then do the diffs with the current state.
So one time options are not really a good fit.

2015-04-13 18:22 GMT+02:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@nanthrax.net>:

> Maybe we can introduce a --force option to stop whatever the
> bundle/feature is used by another feature ?
>
> Regards
> JB
>
>
> On 04/13/2015 06:12 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>
>> We also have to take care about the started="false" flag somehow.
>> I suppose if a feature flags the bundle as started="false", it would
>> behave
>> as if this feature was stopped for the computation of that bundle state.
>>
>> I'm fine with this behaviour, we just to understand that there's no way to
>> make sure a bundle is stopped.
>>
>>
>> 2015-04-13 18:04 GMT+02:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@nanthrax.net>:
>>
>>  I'm with you on that: we just have to agree on the behaviour and document
>>> it accordingly.
>>>
>>> In my opinion, if a bundle is used by a feature (feature A), it should
>>> not
>>> be stopped if we stop another feature that uses it (feature B).
>>>
>>> It's the same for the transitive features.
>>> If a feature is used by a feature, it should not be stopped if we stop
>>> another feature that used it ;)
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>>
>>>
>>> On 04/13/2015 06:01 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>
>>>  Yeah, I was thinking about it.
>>>> Though the obvious other solution is to fix it.
>>>>
>>>> I have actually started an email this morning to discuss but I haven't
>>>> finished it.
>>>>
>>>> Overall, I think it may not be very difficult to fix, as the bundle
>>>> state
>>>> changes are already handled correctly afaik.  The real problem is to
>>>> agree
>>>> on the semantics on the effects, so that we can compute the desired
>>>> state
>>>> of each bundle correctly.
>>>>
>>>> Problems arise when a bundle is used by several features, one of which
>>>> being started and the other resolved.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, it's really up to you, I don't mind fixing the code as long as
>>>> we
>>>> agree on the behaviour.
>>>>
>>>> 2015-04-13 17:51 GMT+02:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@nanthrax.net>:
>>>>
>>>>   Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I discussed with Christian about KARAF-3102.
>>>>>
>>>>> The feature lifecycle doesn't actually fully work, especially around
>>>>> the
>>>>> stop action.
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to avoid to perturb the users, I think we should remove the
>>>>> features lifecycle commands. Else, if they are provided, users will try
>>>>> it
>>>>> and may be disappointed as they won't work as expected.
>>>>>
>>>>> WDYT ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> JB
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>  --
>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>
>>>
>>
> --
> 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