[jira] [Created] (FELIX-5050) Reconfiguring a component with mixing configurable properties and service properties injected fields produces an error

Discussion:

(too old to reply)

German Vega (JIRA)

2015-09-22 08:23:04 UTC

Permalink

German Vega created FELIX-5050:
----------------------------------

Summary: Reconfiguring a component with mixing configurable properties and service properties injected fields produces an error
Key: FELIX-5050
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5050
Project: Felix
Issue Type: Bug
Components: iPOJO
Affects Versions: ipojo-runtime-1.12.1
Reporter: German Vega

When a component using BOTH configurable properties and service properties is reconfigured, the value of the field for the service property is not correctly injected.

--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

German Vega (JIRA)

2015-09-22 08:31:04 UTC

Permalink

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5050?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

German Vega updated FELIX-5050:
-------------------------------
Attachment: bugs.ipojo.property.reconfiguration.zip

Here there is a test case showing the problem. There are three iPOJO components :

- one uses only configurable properties, no problem
- one uses only service properties, no problem
- one mixes both, error in injection

Post by German Vega (JIRA)
Reconfiguring a component with mixing configurable properties and service properties injected fields produces an error
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: FELIX-5050
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5050
Project: Felix
Issue Type: Bug
Components: iPOJO
Affects Versions: ipojo-runtime-1.12.1
Reporter: German Vega
Attachments: bugs.ipojo.property.reconfiguration.zip
When a component using BOTH configurable properties and service properties is reconfigured, the value of the field for the service property is not correctly injected.

--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

German Vega (JIRA)

2015-09-22 08:35:05 UTC

Permalink

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5050?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14902231#comment-14902231 ]

German Vega commented on FELIX-5050:
------------------------------------

After some debugging, the problem comes from propagation of properties from the ConfigurationHandler to the ProvidedServiceHandler.

The method ConfigurationHandler.propagate(Dictionary newProps, Dictionary oldProps) invoke the provided service handler to first remove all properties and then adds again the properties with the new values. This is ok, as this is the only API available provided by the ProvidedServiceHandler to update the service registration.

The problem is that the method ProvidedService.deleteProperties(Dictionary props) just delete the property defintion from its table without verifying if it is a declared service property (with a specified injected filed). When the property is again added by the propagation the update seems to work, but the information about the injected fields is lost.

When the filed is accessed, the ProvidedServiceHandler just returns null because it is not regsitered with any property

--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

German Vega (JIRA)

2015-09-22 08:59:05 UTC

Permalink

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5050?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14902252#comment-14902252 ]

German Vega commented on FELIX-5050:
------------------------------------

I can propose a patch, but after some reading of the code I have two alternatives and I am not sure which one is best :

1) Modify ProvidedService.deleteProperties(Dictionary props) to verify if a field is specified for the property, and in that case do not delete the property but just set its value to null ... this is similar to what is done in ProvidedService.addProperties(Dictionary props)

2) Be finer, and do not propagate values for any declared service property, and let the ProvidedServiceHandler.reconfigure method do its work when it will be invoked later by the instance manager.

The main difference between the two alternatives is that the semantics of the reconfigure seems to be different for the ConfigurationHandler and ProvidedSerrviceHandler concerning properties not specified in the dictionary for the reconfiguration :

- The ConfigurationHandler propagation considers that a value that is not specified in the reconfiguration must be deleted (anyway this is the net effect of fisrt deleting all the old values and then adding all the new values). This means that if a property is not specified in the reconfiguration dictionary it will be set to null.

- The ProvidedServiceHandler.reconfigure method validates if a new value is specified in the reconfiguration for a service property, if no new value is specified it just doesn't update the property. This means that if a property is not specified in the reconfiguration dictionary it will keep its old value.

The two alternatives are reasonable, and the patchs are relatively simple, so let just discuss which one to choose and I can dedicate time to propose the patch.

--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

German Vega (JIRA)

2015-09-22 09:00:12 UTC

Permalink

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5050?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14902231#comment-14902231 ]

German Vega edited comment on FELIX-5050 at 9/22/15 8:59 AM:
-------------------------------------------------------------

After some debugging, the problem comes from propagation of properties from the ConfigurationHandler to the ProvidedServiceHandler.

The method ConfigurationHandler.propagate(Dictionary,Dictionary) invoke the provided service handler to first remove all properties and then adds again the properties with the new values. This is ok, as this is the only API available provided by the ProvidedServiceHandler to update the service registration.

The problem is that the method ProvidedService.deleteProperties(Dictionary) just delete the property defintion from its table without verifying if it is a declared service property (with a specified injected field). When the property is again added by the propagation the update seems to work, but the information about the injected fields is lost.

When the field is accessed, the ProvidedServiceHandler just returns null because it is not regsitered with any property

was (Author: gvega):
After some debugging, the problem comes from propagation of properties from the ConfigurationHandler to the ProvidedServiceHandler.

The method ConfigurationHandler.propagate(Dictionary newProps, Dictionary oldProps) invoke the provided service handler to first remove all properties and then adds again the properties with the new values. This is ok, as this is the only API available provided by the ProvidedServiceHandler to update the service registration.

The problem is that the method ProvidedService.deleteProperties(Dictionary props) just delete the property defintion from its table without verifying if it is a declared service property (with a specified injected filed). When the property is again added by the propagation the update seems to work, but the information about the injected fields is lost.

When the filed is accessed, the ProvidedServiceHandler just returns null because it is not regsitered with any property

--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

German Vega (JIRA)

2015-09-22 09:01:04 UTC

Permalink

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5050?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14902252#comment-14902252 ]

German Vega edited comment on FELIX-5050 at 9/22/15 9:00 AM:
-------------------------------------------------------------

I can propose a patch, but after some reading of the code I have two alternatives and I am not sure which one is best :

1) Modify ProvidedService.deleteProperties(Dictionary) to verify if a field is specified for the property, and in that case do not delete the property but just set its value to null ... this is similar to what is done in ProvidedService.addProperties(Dictionary)

2) Be finer, and do not propagate values for any declared service property, and let the ProvidedServiceHandler.reconfigure method do its work when it will be invoked later by the instance manager.

The main difference between the two alternatives is that the semantics of the reconfigure seems to be different for the ConfigurationHandler and ProvidedSerrviceHandler concerning properties not specified in the dictionary for the reconfiguration :

- The ConfigurationHandler propagation considers that a value that is not specified in the reconfiguration must be deleted (anyway this is the net effect of fisrt deleting all the old values and then adding all the new values). This means that if a property is not specified in the reconfiguration dictionary it will be set to null.

- The ProvidedServiceHandler.reconfigure method validates if a new value is specified in the reconfiguration for a service property, if no new value is specified it just doesn't update the property. This means that if a property is not specified in the reconfiguration dictionary it will keep its old value.

The two alternatives are reasonable, and the patchs are relatively simple, so let just discuss which one to choose and I can dedicate time to propose the patch.

was (Author: gvega):
I can propose a patch, but after some reading of the code I have two alternatives and I am not sure which one is best :

1) Modify ProvidedService.deleteProperties(Dictionary props) to verify if a field is specified for the property, and in that case do not delete the property but just set its value to null ... this is similar to what is done in ProvidedService.addProperties(Dictionary props)

2) Be finer, and do not propagate values for any declared service property, and let the ProvidedServiceHandler.reconfigure method do its work when it will be invoked later by the instance manager.

The main difference between the two alternatives is that the semantics of the reconfigure seems to be different for the ConfigurationHandler and ProvidedSerrviceHandler concerning properties not specified in the dictionary for the reconfiguration :

- The ConfigurationHandler propagation considers that a value that is not specified in the reconfiguration must be deleted (anyway this is the net effect of fisrt deleting all the old values and then adding all the new values). This means that if a property is not specified in the reconfiguration dictionary it will be set to null.

- The ProvidedServiceHandler.reconfigure method validates if a new value is specified in the reconfiguration for a service property, if no new value is specified it just doesn't update the property. This means that if a property is not specified in the reconfiguration dictionary it will keep its old value.

The two alternatives are reasonable, and the patchs are relatively simple, so let just discuss which one to choose and I can dedicate time to propose the patch.

--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

German Vega (JIRA)

2015-09-22 09:10:04 UTC

Permalink

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5050?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14902252#comment-14902252 ]

German Vega edited comment on FELIX-5050 at 9/22/15 9:09 AM:
-------------------------------------------------------------

I can propose a patch, but after some reading of the code I have two alternatives and I am not sure which one is best :

1) Modify ProvidedService.deleteProperties(Dictionary) to verify if a field is specified for the property, and in that case do not delete the property but just set its value to null ... this is similar to what is done in ProvidedService.addProperties(Dictionary)

2) Be finer, and do not propagate values for any declared service property, and let the ProvidedServiceHandler.reconfigure method do its work when it will be invoked later by the instance manager.

The main difference between the two alternatives is that the semantics of the reconfigure seems to be different for the ConfigurationHandler and ProvidedSerrviceHandler concerning properties not specified in the dictionary for the reconfiguration :

- The ConfigurationHandler propagation considers that a value that is not specified in the reconfiguration must be deleted (anyway this is the net effect of fisrt deleting all the old values and then adding all the new values). This means that if a property is not specified in the reconfiguration dictionary it will be set to null.

- The ProvidedServiceHandler.reconfigure method validates if a new value is specified in the reconfiguration for a service property, if no new value is specified it just doesn't update the property. This means that if a property is not specified in the reconfiguration dictionary it will keep its old value.

The two alternatives are reasonable, and the patchs are relatively simple, so let just discuss which one to choose and I can dedicate time to propose the patch.

We also need to consider what happens when using the Configuration Admin because in that case only the ConfigurationHandler is invoked.

was (Author: gvega):
I can propose a patch, but after some reading of the code I have two alternatives and I am not sure which one is best :

1) Modify ProvidedService.deleteProperties(Dictionary) to verify if a field is specified for the property, and in that case do not delete the property but just set its value to null ... this is similar to what is done in ProvidedService.addProperties(Dictionary)

2) Be finer, and do not propagate values for any declared service property, and let the ProvidedServiceHandler.reconfigure method do its work when it will be invoked later by the instance manager.

The main difference between the two alternatives is that the semantics of the reconfigure seems to be different for the ConfigurationHandler and ProvidedSerrviceHandler concerning properties not specified in the dictionary for the reconfiguration :

- The ConfigurationHandler propagation considers that a value that is not specified in the reconfiguration must be deleted (anyway this is the net effect of fisrt deleting all the old values and then adding all the new values). This means that if a property is not specified in the reconfiguration dictionary it will be set to null.

- The ProvidedServiceHandler.reconfigure method validates if a new value is specified in the reconfiguration for a service property, if no new value is specified it just doesn't update the property. This means that if a property is not specified in the reconfiguration dictionary it will keep its old value.

The two alternatives are reasonable, and the patchs are relatively simple, so let just discuss which one to choose and I can dedicate time to propose the patch.

--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

German Vega (JIRA)

2015-09-22 09:10:04 UTC

Permalink

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5050?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14902252#comment-14902252 ]

German Vega edited comment on FELIX-5050 at 9/22/15 9:09 AM:
-------------------------------------------------------------

I can propose a patch, but after some reading of the code I have two alternatives and I am not sure which one is best :

1) Modify ProvidedService.deleteProperties(Dictionary) to verify if a field is specified for the property, and in that case do not delete the property but just set its value to null ... this is similar to what is done in ProvidedService.addProperties(Dictionary)

2) Be finer, and do not propagate values for any declared service property, and let the ProvidedServiceHandler.reconfigure method do its work when it will be invoked later by the instance manager.

The main difference between the two alternatives is that the semantics of the reconfigure seems to be different for the ConfigurationHandler and ProvidedSerrviceHandler concerning properties not specified in the dictionary for the reconfiguration :

- The ConfigurationHandler propagation considers that a value that is not specified in the reconfiguration must be deleted (anyway this is the net effect of first deleting all the old values and then adding all the new values). This means that if a property is not specified in the reconfiguration dictionary it will be set to null.

- The ProvidedServiceHandler.reconfigure method validates if a new value is specified in the reconfiguration for a service property, if no new value is specified it just doesn't update the property. This means that if a property is not specified in the reconfiguration dictionary it will keep its old value.

The two alternatives are reasonable, and the patchs are relatively simple, so let just discuss which one to choose and I can dedicate time to propose the patch.

We also need to consider what happens when using the Configuration Admin because in that case only the ConfigurationHandler is invoked.

was (Author: gvega):
I can propose a patch, but after some reading of the code I have two alternatives and I am not sure which one is best :

1) Modify ProvidedService.deleteProperties(Dictionary) to verify if a field is specified for the property, and in that case do not delete the property but just set its value to null ... this is similar to what is done in ProvidedService.addProperties(Dictionary)

2) Be finer, and do not propagate values for any declared service property, and let the ProvidedServiceHandler.reconfigure method do its work when it will be invoked later by the instance manager.

The main difference between the two alternatives is that the semantics of the reconfigure seems to be different for the ConfigurationHandler and ProvidedSerrviceHandler concerning properties not specified in the dictionary for the reconfiguration :

- The ConfigurationHandler propagation considers that a value that is not specified in the reconfiguration must be deleted (anyway this is the net effect of fisrt deleting all the old values and then adding all the new values). This means that if a property is not specified in the reconfiguration dictionary it will be set to null.

- The ProvidedServiceHandler.reconfigure method validates if a new value is specified in the reconfiguration for a service property, if no new value is specified it just doesn't update the property. This means that if a property is not specified in the reconfiguration dictionary it will keep its old value.

The two alternatives are reasonable, and the patchs are relatively simple, so let just discuss which one to choose and I can dedicate time to propose the patch.

We also need to consider what happens when using the Configuration Admin because in that case only the ConfigurationHandler is invoked.

--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

German Vega (JIRA)

2015-09-25 14:26:04 UTC

Permalink

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5050?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14902252#comment-14902252 ]

German Vega edited comment on FELIX-5050 at 9/25/15 2:25 PM:
-------------------------------------------------------------

I can propose a patch, but after some reading of the code I have two alternatives and I am not sure which one is best :

1) Modify ProvidedService.deleteProperties(Dictionary) to verify if a field is specified for the property, and in that case do not delete the property but just set its value to null ... this is similar to what is done in ProvidedService.addProperties(Dictionary)

2) Be finer, and do not propagate values for any declared service property, and let the ProvidedServiceHandler.reconfigure method do its work when it will be invoked later by the instance manager.

The main difference between the two alternatives is that the semantics of the reconfigure seems to be different for the ConfigurationHandler and ProvidedServiceHandler concerning properties not specified in the dictionary for the reconfiguration :

- The ConfigurationHandler propagation considers that a value that is not specified in the reconfiguration must be deleted (anyway this is the net effect of first deleting all the old values and then adding all the new values). This means that if a property is not specified in the reconfiguration dictionary it will be set to null.

- The ProvidedServiceHandler.reconfigure method validates if a new value is specified in the reconfiguration for a service property, if no new value is specified it just doesn't update the property. This means that if a property is not specified in the reconfiguration dictionary it will keep its old value.

The two alternatives are reasonable, and the patchs are relatively simple, so let just discuss which one to choose and I can dedicate time to propose the patch.

We also need to consider what happens when using the Configuration Admin because in that case only the ConfigurationHandler is invoked.

was (Author: gvega):
I can propose a patch, but after some reading of the code I have two alternatives and I am not sure which one is best :

1) Modify ProvidedService.deleteProperties(Dictionary) to verify if a field is specified for the property, and in that case do not delete the property but just set its value to null ... this is similar to what is done in ProvidedService.addProperties(Dictionary)

2) Be finer, and do not propagate values for any declared service property, and let the ProvidedServiceHandler.reconfigure method do its work when it will be invoked later by the instance manager.

The main difference between the two alternatives is that the semantics of the reconfigure seems to be different for the ConfigurationHandler and ProvidedSerrviceHandler concerning properties not specified in the dictionary for the reconfiguration :

- The ConfigurationHandler propagation considers that a value that is not specified in the reconfiguration must be deleted (anyway this is the net effect of first deleting all the old values and then adding all the new values). This means that if a property is not specified in the reconfiguration dictionary it will be set to null.

- The ProvidedServiceHandler.reconfigure method validates if a new value is specified in the reconfiguration for a service property, if no new value is specified it just doesn't update the property. This means that if a property is not specified in the reconfiguration dictionary it will keep its old value.

The two alternatives are reasonable, and the patchs are relatively simple, so let just discuss which one to choose and I can dedicate time to propose the patch.

We also need to consider what happens when using the Configuration Admin because in that case only the ConfigurationHandler is invoked.

--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

German Vega (JIRA)

2015-09-25 14:35:04 UTC

Permalink

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5050?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14908096#comment-14908096 ]

German Vega commented on FELIX-5050:
------------------------------------

Another issue (not directly related to the bug, but ) is the treamtement of programmatic updates of the field (setting the property field in a component method). Here there is also a difference be the ConfigurationHandler and ProvidedServiceHandler :

- The ProvidedServiceHandler changes the value of the property ANDupdates the service registration.

-The ConfigurationHandler changes the valueof the property, but DOES NOT propagate the value to the ProvidedServiceHandler.

--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

German Vega (JIRA)

2015-09-25 14:36:04 UTC

Permalink

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5050?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14908096#comment-14908096 ]

German Vega edited comment on FELIX-5050 at 9/25/15 2:35 PM:
-------------------------------------------------------------

Another issue (not directly related to the bug, but that is not consistent) is the treamtement of programmatic updates of the field (setting the property field in a component method). Here there is also a difference be the ConfigurationHandler and ProvidedServiceHandler :

- The ProvidedServiceHandler changes the value of the property ANDupdates the service registration.

-The ConfigurationHandler changes the valueof the property, but DOES NOT propagate the value to the ProvidedServiceHandler.

was (Author: gvega):
Another issue (not directly related to the bug, but ) is the treamtement of programmatic updates of the field (setting the property field in a component method). Here there is also a difference be the ConfigurationHandler and ProvidedServiceHandler :

- The ProvidedServiceHandler changes the value of the property ANDupdates the service registration.

-The ConfigurationHandler changes the valueof the property, but DOES NOT propagate the value to the ProvidedServiceHandler.

--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

German Vega (JIRA)

2015-09-25 14:36:04 UTC

Permalink

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5050?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14908096#comment-14908096 ]

German Vega edited comment on FELIX-5050 at 9/25/15 2:35 PM:
-------------------------------------------------------------

Another issue (not directly related to the bug, but that is not consistent) is the treamtement of programmatic updates of the field (setting the property field in a component method). Here there is also a difference be the ConfigurationHandler and ProvidedServiceHandler :

- The ProvidedServiceHandler changes the value of the property ANDupdates the service registration.

- The ConfigurationHandler changes the valueof the property, but DOES NOT propagate the value to the ProvidedServiceHandler.

was (Author: gvega):
Another issue (not directly related to the bug, but that is not consistent) is the treamtement of programmatic updates of the field (setting the property field in a component method). Here there is also a difference be the ConfigurationHandler and ProvidedServiceHandler :

- The ProvidedServiceHandler changes the value of the property ANDupdates the service registration.

-The ConfigurationHandler changes the valueof the property, but DOES NOT propagate the value to the ProvidedServiceHandler.

--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

German Vega (JIRA)

2015-09-25 14:36:04 UTC

Permalink

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5050?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14908096#comment-14908096 ]

German Vega edited comment on FELIX-5050 at 9/25/15 2:35 PM:
-------------------------------------------------------------

Another issue (not directly related to the bug, but that is not consistent) is the treamtement of programmatic updates of the field (setting the property field in a component method). Here there is also a difference be the ConfigurationHandler and ProvidedServiceHandler :

- The ProvidedServiceHandler changes the value of the property ANDupdates the service registration.

- The ConfigurationHandler changes the value of the property, but DOES NOT propagate the value to the ProvidedServiceHandler.

was (Author: gvega):
Another issue (not directly related to the bug, but that is not consistent) is the treamtement of programmatic updates of the field (setting the property field in a component method). Here there is also a difference be the ConfigurationHandler and ProvidedServiceHandler :

- The ProvidedServiceHandler changes the value of the property ANDupdates the service registration.

- The ConfigurationHandler changes the valueof the property, but DOES NOT propagate the value to the ProvidedServiceHandler.

--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

German Vega (JIRA)

2015-09-30 14:23:05 UTC

Permalink

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5050?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14908096#comment-14908096 ]

German Vega edited comment on FELIX-5050 at 9/30/15 2:22 PM:
-------------------------------------------------------------

Another issue (not directly related to the bug, but that is not consistent) is the treamtement of programmatic updates of the field (setting the property field in a component method). Here there is also a difference between the ConfigurationHandler and ProvidedServiceHandler :

- The ProvidedServiceHandler changes the value of the property AND updates the service registration.

- The ConfigurationHandler changes the value of the property, but DOES NOT propagate the value to the ProvidedServiceHandler.

was (Author: gvega):
Another issue (not directly related to the bug, but that is not consistent) is the treamtement of programmatic updates of the field (setting the property field in a component method). Here there is also a difference be the ConfigurationHandler and ProvidedServiceHandler :

- The ProvidedServiceHandler changes the value of the property ANDupdates the service registration.

- The ConfigurationHandler changes the value of the property, but DOES NOT propagate the value to the ProvidedServiceHandler.

--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)