I have a question about OSGI bundles deployment.
I have 7 bundles which I need to deploy in a strict order otherwise I get no class found error. Part of the bundles are used as static libraries, part of them export OSGI services.
In OSGI applications how this problem is usually solved?
This problem is solved by not solving it (at least, not in the way you have asked).
That is: don't have bundles that must to install/start in a strict order! This implies your bundles are very poorly designed. Instead, change your bundles so that they can start in any order.
If you have difficulties with this then please modify your question so that we can see why you think you need the start ordering.
If I understand your issue correctly, it is just a matter of providing the correct dependencies chain to be resolved by OSGi.
Your libraries should export packages that your services will import.
If BundleA requires classes from BundleB and OtherBundle, adding Import-Package and Export-Package metadata in the MANIFEST.MF of all bundles should be sufficient.
BundleA MANIFEST.MF
Import-Package: my.required.package.from.b, other.package.in.b, other.package
BundleB MANIFEST.MF
Export-Package: my.required.package.from.b, other.package.in.b
OtherBundle MANIFEST.MF
Export-Package: other.package
Then install all bundles, they will be in INSTALLED state. Start the main one (BundleA in this example).
OSGi will resolve all dependencies (just be careful not to have cycles) and bundles will go in RESOLVED state (dependencies available) and then ACTIVE.
You don't need to manually add those dependencies, tools like maven-bundle-plugin can be easily configured.
Also this question What is the natural start order for package-dependent OSGI bundles may be useful.
I agree that the best approach, as Neil Bartlett mentioned, is avoiding it. However sometimes ordering the start of the bundles is necessary. Even using Equinox or Felix you can have it using bundle start-level. It will ensure that your bundles will start in a specific order.
"A start level is associated with every bundle. The start level is a positive integer value that controls the order in which bundles are activated/started. Bundles with a low start level are started before bundles with a high start level. Hence, bundles with the start level, 1, are started first and bundles belonging to the kernel tend to have lower start levels, because they provide the prerequisites for running most other bundles." - Red Hat JBoss Fuse Documentation
Hope it helps.
Related
I am very new to the OSGi platform.
Having an OSGi bundle B1 that has a dependency to another bundle B2, which is very probably not provided by the container, can I package both bundles in the same jar?
If yes: howto do that? what would happen if the jar is installed and the bundle is already installed?
Yes you can do this... kind of.
Normally OSGi bundles are JAR files because they need to have a META-INF/MANIFEST.MF. The OSGi framework cannot directly read your "multi-bundle" JAR.
However, installing bundles in OSGi involves calling the BundleContext.installBundle method. This method has two flavours, one of them takes an InputStream as a parameter; this InputStream should supply the content of the OSGi bundle. Therefore you can take your big JAR and read it with a JarInputStream, passing the individual entries to the installBundle method.
Although OSGi doesn't directly support multiple bundles in the same jar, there is a standard for multiple bundles in the same archive, which solves the distribution problem you're trying to address. Unfortunately, it may introduce an extra problem in your scenario, because it's part of enterprise OSGi, rather than core OSGi, so it wouldn't be part of a bare bones Equinox or Felix framework. If you have more control over the starting platform your users are using, it may do what you need.
The basic idea is that you package all your bundles into a zip with a .esa extension, along with a simple manifest. You can then distribute the esa file. This tutorial includes lots more detail:
http://coderthoughts.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/osgi-subsystems.html?m=1
Can a OSGi bundle have two dependencies, each on a different version of the same OSGi bundle?
Can a OSGi package have two dependencies, each on a different version of the same OSGi package?
(I am trying to learn OSGi from the ground up. This question is just intended to help me understand the basic concepts. From reading online articles about OSGi services, I gather that such dependencies certainly wouldn't be recommended practice. But are they possible at all?)
(Update: rephrased the two questions.)
No. OSGi provides a consistent class space for a bundle. This means that it is only exposed to a single class of a given name. So a bundle cannot simultaneously see more than one version of a package at a time.
This does not mean that ClassCastExceptions are impossible since code your bundle is directly dependent on, can expose objects from their dependencies to your bundle. The proper use of uses constraints on export packages is important to prevent this.
Can a OSGi bundle depend on two different versions of another OSGi bundle at the same time?
Can an OSGi package depend on two different versions of another OSGi package at the same time?
Sort of. You can depend on ranges or specific versions of another OSGI bundle or package like this:
Import-Package: org.osgi.framework;version="[1.3,2.0)"
Not sure if that applies in the first section because bundles should not depend on other bundles, only packages. This is what 'Require-Bundle' does but is suggested you don't use it. Require-Bundle takes versions as well so theoretically it should support version ranges.
Once your OSGi bundle is resolved within OSGi, it will find the package of any of those versions. However, it can't resolve a package (org.osgi.framework) to two separate bundles (one which provides version 1.9 and one which provides 1.8). It will choose the most recent version based on SemVer.
If you try to specify it twice in Import-Package, you will get a 'Duplicate Import' error.
I am trying to understand the intended use case for Bundle-Classpath in OSGI bundles.
Here is my understanding, please help me understand if this is correct.
Let's say I am working on creating an OSGI bundle which will be deployed in an ecosystem of other bundles. The bundle I am working on needs some other bundles, but they are not loaded/exported in this ecosystem, and I do not have control on what the ecosystem exports. In such a scenario, I can put these bundles inside some directory (say 'lib') which becomes part of my bundle. These bundles should also be referenced from the Bundle-Classpath, so they can be loaded.
Is this a correct use case for Bundle-Classpath ?
Will these additional bundles also be loaded in the OSGI container and will packages exported by them be available to other bundles ?
Bundle-ClassPath is intended for including dependencies in our bundle, so that our bundle can be deployed standalone.
Let's take an example. Suppose the code in my bundle uses a library, e.g. Google Guava. I have two choices for packaging my bundle:
Simply create my bundle with only my own code inside it. The bundle will now have the Import-Package statements that declare a dependency on Guava, and anybody who wants to deploy my bundle into his application will also have to deploy Guava.
Alternatively I can include a copy of Guava inside my bundle and reference it from my Bundle-ClassPath. Whoever deploys my bundle can deploy just my bundle, and doesn't need to worry about where to get Guava from. In fact, the existence of Guava inside my bundle is an implementation detail, and the deployer doesn't even need to know that I am using it.
The choice between these two options is a trade-off. Option 2 has the advantage that my bundle is easier to deploy because it is standalone -- everything it needs is right there inside it. On the other hand my bundle is much bigger than it needs to be, which could become a problem if lots of other bundles also embed their own copy of Guava.
A more severe problem with option 2 is that all of the dependencies of the library now become my dependencies as well. Actually Guava is a rare example of a Java library with no dependencies of its own... but many other Java libraries drag in a huge tree of transitive dependencies. If you use this approach with, say, Hibernate then your own bundle will also have that large dependency set. This gets very ugly, very quickly.
So, you should be cautious not to overuse Bundle-ClassPath/Embed-Dependency. You should only consider using it if the dependency is (a) small, and with no transitive dependencies, and (b) your bundle uses the library as an internal implementation detail, i.e. it is not part of your public API.
UPDATE
I forgot to answer your second question about the exports. The answer is NO, the exports of any "bundles" you put on your Bundle-ClassPath will NOT become exports of your own bundle. In fact the JARs we put on Bundle-ClassPath are not treated as bundles at all, they are just JARs.
You can choose to export packages that come from within the JARs on your Bundle-ClassPath but you have to do this in the MANIFEST.MF of your own bundle.
The most common use case for this header is the packaging of external libraries. Let's say you have some library foo.jar, and want to use its classes in your bundle.
You put the jar into your bundle like so,
/
com/company/Activator.class
foo.jar
META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
In you manifest, you can now use
Bundle-ClassPath: foo.jar,.
Remember to include the . on the classpath, or you will not be able to find the classes in your bundle.
When classes are on the Bundle-ClassPath, you can use them like any other class: use them in your code, or export them.
I think you may be a bit off here.
A Bundle-Classpath is an ordered, comma-separated list of relative
bundle JAR file locations to be searched for class and resource
requests.
What this means is that when some bundle class needs another class in
the same bundle, the entire bundle class path of the containing bundle
is searched to find the class.
From OSGI in Action.
Let's consider a concrete case. Imagine a bundle (JAR file) with the following structure:
src/a/A.class
src2/b/B.class
src3/c/C.class
if you wanted a.A, b.B and c.C to be available to each other, you'd have to define src, src2 and src3 as pertaining to the bundle classpath. That would mean you'd have to add to your manifest file the following line:
Bundle-ClassPath: src,src2,src3
What is the difference between spring source dm server specific Import-Bundle and OSGi's Require-Bundle?
I am confused whether to use Import-Bundle or Require-Bundle in my project.
Import-Bundle is similar to Require-Bundle, it creates a complete dependency on the other bundle, including that bundle's dependencies. This transitivity is bad because you have no idea what you depend, creating the infamous "big ball of mud" problem we're so familiar with in Object oriented programming.
In OO, we've found a solution to this entanglement by using interfaces, they separate implementation from specification. OSGi is built around a similar albeit of an higher order concept of service contracts. These contracts (interfaces, permissions, helper classes) are stored in a package. In contract based programming you depend on the contracts, not the implementations. Ergo, an OSGi bundle should depend on packages since they represent the contracts.
Import-Package <=> interface
Import-Bundle/Require-Bundle <=> implementation class
Import-Bundle is NOT OSGi, it is a proprietary Spring extension. It is a cleaner form for Require-Bundle; the uncleanliness was necessary to support some Eclipse use cases. The OSGi decided not to adopt this header since the Require-Bundle/Import-Bundle is fundamentally broken if you want to build systems from components.
Ideally you should try to rather use Import-Package instead. It makes you bundles less dependent on each other. It also allows to show that you only depend on a part of a bundle. This is also important for managing versions. In OSGi you can define the versions of exported packages independent of the bundle version. So you can make sure you only change versions of an API if it really changes. This can make your app much more manageable.
It's explained here at SpringSource
So summarizing: Import-Bundle will import all exported packages of a certain bundle, it will resolve that when deploying, while Require-Bundle really requires a bundle with that type, and that relationship stays that way during runtime.
Normally they would behave pretty much the same. For example it can be different when:
You have 'split packages': packages that exist in multiple bundles, you might 'lose' dependencies with Import-Package / Import-Bundle that you can only express with Require-Bundle (Note that you really should avoid split packages if you can)
I think the Bundle->Package resolution is when you deploy that bundle. If you redeploy the bundle with the exported bundles to a version with different export, I don't think the bundle will notice. To be honest I'm not exactly sure about this one.
All in all, I'd say stick with the OSGi standard: Import-Package or Require-Bundle if you really need it. You'll have a bit more headers but you'll so many more options in the long run.
OSGi allows for dependencies to be determined via Import-Package, which just wires up a single package (exported from any bundle), and Require-Bundle, which wires up to a specific named bundle's exports.
In building a greenfield OSGi application, which approach should I use to represent dependencies? Most of the bundles will be internal, but there will be some dependencies on external (open-source) bundles.
I believe Require-Bundle is an Eclipse thing (that has now made it in the OSGi spec to accommodate Eclipse). The "pure" OSGi way is to use Import-Package, as it specifically decouples the package from the bundle that provides it. You should be declaring dependencies on functionality that you need (the Java API provided by a certain version of a certain package) instead of where that functionality is coming from (which should not matter to you). This keeps the composition of bundles more flexible.
JavaScript analogy: This is like detecting whether a web browser supports a certain API versus inferring from what the user-agent string says what kind of browser it is.
Peter Kriens of the OSGi Alliance has more to say about this on the OSGi blog.
Probably the only case where you need to use Require-Bundle is if you have split packages, that is a package that is spread across multiple bundles. Split packages are of course highly discouraged.
Favour Import-Package over Require-Bundle.
Require-Bundle:
specifies the explicit bundle (and version) to use. If a requirde bundle needs to be refactored and a package moved elsewhere, then dependents will need changes to their MANIFEST.MF
gives you accesss to ALL exports of the bundle, regardless of what they are, and regardless of whether you need them. If the parts you don't need have their own dependencies you will need those to
bundles can be re-exported
although discouraged, allows the use of split packages, ie: a package that is spread across multiple bundles
can be used for non-code dependencies, eg: resources, Help etc.
Import-Package:
looser coupling, only the package (and version) is specified and the run-time finds the required bundle
Actual implementations can be swaped out
Dependent packages can be moved to different bundles by the package owner
But requires more metadata to be maintained (i.e: each package name) at lower levels of granularity
I believe Import-Package gives you looser coupling and should be preferred. I use it when declaring dependencies on packages that I don't own, such as slf4j, and I can swap implementations as I wish. I use Require-Bundle when the dependency is something I have control over, such as my own bundles, because any important change would have gone through myself anyway.
Avoid Import-Package.
As packages provide many-to-many relationships between bundles, they are prone to dependency cycles that are hard to detect and avoid.
Require-Bundle on the other hand, references a single bundle, making dependency graph protected from cycles by a trivial build-time check.
With Require-Bundle it is much easier to build layered architecture with isolated lower level of abstraction.
Import-Package should be better because, as previously said, you can move a package from one bundle to another without changing existing client's MANIFEST.MF
But...
There is a practical reason to use Require-Bundle if you are using Eclipse to develop your bundles:
Eclipse don't use packages as units of resolution. It uses bundles. That is, if you use one package of a bundle, Eclipse compiles your bundle without reporting any problem with the use of the rest of packages not imported from that bundle.
You could (you are human) think that everything is OK and upload your bundle for deployment but ... your bundle will break at runtime.
I'm sure about it because this problem has happened (to me!) today.
The good solution would be to change the Eclipse classpath container but... if this is not going to be done... you could decide to avoid this kind of problems requiring bundles, instead of packages, paying the mentioned price (no backward compatible code movement between bundles).
I'm not convinced that using Import-Package is better, because my default expectation when working with a bundle is to work with the associated public API. For that reason, Require-Bundle makes more sense.