<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<tt>> Why would the OSGI bundle not be able to resolve, is it
because is waiting for another OSGI bundle to be installed?<br>
<br>
This is by virtue of the API - BundleContext.install() does not
resolve the bundle. As the method name suggests, it just installs
the bundle. <br>
<br>
In the hot-deployment case it is debatable whether bundle
resolution and later bundle activation should be attempted or not.
By design, the order of bundle deployment is not the
responsibility of the user but that of the framework. For a
complex graph of interdependent bundles the user cannot possibly
be asked to deploy them in the "right order". Instead the API
allows to INSTALL the complete set (i.e. make the metadata
available to the resolver) and later activate the bundles as
needed. There are other triggers for bundle resolution too (e.g.
resource access)<br>
<br>
We currently do resolve/activate during DUP processing on a trial
basis. For a bundle that only has dedependencies on already
installed bundles the resolve/activation works fine and the
services become available. I guess this is the expected hot-deploy
behaviour. A bundle that cannot resolve - for various reasons, one
being the user says so - we dont attempt to start the bundle
either. It would still run through all remaining DUPs but does not
have a module attached.<br>
<br>
Non-OSGi deployments that use jboss-modules metadata to define
their dependencies (i.e. Dependencies clause in the manifest) have
that problem too, but worse. A complex system of interdependent
module deployments is likely not manageable because of this
ordering issue. Even if the user gets the ordering right the first
time, on server restart the notion of deployment order is lost and
very likely initial deployments will fail with no osgi involved.
Granted that this describes a use case that is not intended to be
used for user deployments. <br>
<br>
> the classic one is deployment of JDBC drivers that have an
OSGI manifest<br>
<br>
We already removed the hack that disables OSGi for this case. The
JDBC driver *is* an OSGi bundle because it contains valid OSGi
metadata. It gets processed as such and should work as expected.
All DUP processing is identical as before except the way module
dependencies are computed and how the Module service is created.
The only case where an OSGi bundle gets treated as a library jar
is when it is located in an EAR/lib directory. Bundles contained
in EARs are otherwise processed as OSGi sub deployments.</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>> we should not be allowing the presence of the OSGI
subsystem to provide a different experience for users that are
only after EE functionality
<br>
<br>
Agreed, EE deployments should not be effected - and I don't think
they are. The OSGi subsystem is not activated unless #1 you do so
by management op #2 you deploy a bundle #3 some component is an
injection target for the system BundleContext<br>
<br>
> We remove OSGI from the default profile, and provide a
standalone-osgi.xml for users that wish to use OSGI<br>
<br>
AFAICS this would remove a few services that are already lazy and
a few DUPs that deal with bundle deployments. W</tt><tt>e already
have t</tt><tt>he configuration for a pure OSGi runtime as you
suggest. Removing the OSGi subsystem from the default profile
would not solve the need for DUP authors to be aware of OSGi
deployments and code for the case of unresolved bundle
deployments.<br>
<br>
</tt><tt>> OSGI deployment that cannot be resolved pause the
deployment process until such time as they can be
<br>
<br>
Yes, this is very much in line with what I think how it should
work. The management API should allow the user to specify whether
a deployment should get resolved/activated too. As a desired side
effect this could introduce life cycle for any AS7 deployment
(i.e. start/stop decoupled from deploy/undeploy). I already did
some work in this direction related to in "<a
href="https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-2777">Add notion of
start/stop for deployments</a>". It builds on top of "<a
href="https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-3694">Allow management
client to associate metadata with DeploymentUnit</a>", which is
waiting to get <a
href="https://github.com/jbossas/jboss-as/pull/2790">pulled</a>.<br>
<br>
> which means that there will always be a Module available
<br>
<br>
YES ;-)<br>
<br>
cheers<br>
--thomas<br>
</tt><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 08/15/2012 07:26 AM, Stuart Douglas
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2ABFD913-B778-4469-83B8-607BE9BDC902@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Why would the OSGI bundle not be able to resolve, is it because is waiting for another OSGI bundle to be installed? And if so, wouldn't it make more sense to pause the deployment process until the bundle can be resolved? Otherwise the behaviour will be different depending on when the bundle is resolved (e.g. if a bundle is resolved late it will not have EJB's deployed, if it is resolved early it will).
I really hate the way that OSGI takes over and prevents the module being created, I am pretty sure that the number of users that this has caused problems for is larger than the number of users that actually use OSGI (the classic one is deployment of JDBC drivers that have an OSGI manifest).
I think we really need a solution for this for AS 7.2, because as it currently stands we are primarily an EE app server, and we should not be allowing the presence of the OSGI subsystem to provide a different experience for users that are only after EE functionality.
To this end, I propose the following:
- We remove OSGI from the default profile, and provide a standalone-osgi.xml for users that wish to use OSGI, this way OSGI cannot affect users that simply want EE functionality
- OSGI deployment that cannot be resolved pause the deployment process until such time as they can be, by making the POST_MODULE DeploymentUnitPhaseService passive, which means that there will always be a Module available.
What do you think?
Stuart
On 15/08/2012, at 3:05 PM, Thomas Diesler <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:thomas.diesler@jboss.com"><thomas.diesler@jboss.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Folks,
a quick reminder that you cannot assume a valid Module attachment in
Phase.POST_MODULE or after.
An OSGi deployment that cannot resolve won't have a Module attached to
the DU. There is talk about aligning the deployment phase names with
Bundle life cycle terminology. IMHO Phase.POST_MODULE and Phase.INSTALL
are not so lucky names because they imply meaning that may not be true.
For suggested improvement see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-3585">https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-3585</a>
This is related to: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-5376">https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-5376</a>
cheers
--thomas
--
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thomas Diesler
JBoss OSGi Lead
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
jboss-as7-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jboss-as7-dev@lists.jboss.org">jboss-as7-dev@lists.jboss.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thomas Diesler
JBoss OSGi Lead
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
</pre>
</body>
</html>