Community
Participate
Working Groups
Using Eclipse 3.5M2 from HEAD Section 112.4.6 of the OSGi spec discusses the <service> element. The <service> element has an optional servicefactory attribute, which has the following constraint: "The servicefactory attribute MUST NOT be true if the component is a factory component or an immediate component." The spec goes on, rather redundantly to say: "A component description is ILL-FORMED if it specifies that the component is a factory component or an immediate component and servicefactory is set to true." In cases where a component is ill-formed it seems appropriate to issue an error rather than a warning. Here are two examples of an ill-formed component. 1. The <component> element's immediate attribute is set to "true" and its <service> element's servicefactory attribute set to "true": <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <component immediate="true" name="com.ibm.foo"> <implementation class="com.ibm.foo.internal.Component"/> <service servicefactory="true"> <provide interface="com.ibm.foo.IBar"/> </service> </component> 2. The <component> element's factory attribute set and its <service> element's servicefactory attribute set to "true": <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <component name="com.ibm.foo" factory="bar.factory"> <implementation class="com.ibm.foo.internal.Component"/> <service servicefactory="true"> <provide interface="com.ibm.foo.IBar"/> </service> </component> Finally, the spec goes on to say this about the body of the <service> element: "The service element MUST have one or more provide elements that define the service interfaces." A couple of examples: 1. There is nothing between <service> and </service>: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <component name="com.ibm.foo"> <implementation class="com.ibm.foo.internal.Component"/> <service> </service> </component> 2. There is simply a <service/> element: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <component name="com.ibm.foo"> <implementation class="com.ibm.foo.internal.Component"/> <service/> </component> I think it is appropriate to issue an error when the <service> element does not contain any <provide> elements.
Created attachment 116076 [details] DSErrorReporter updates 1-validating ServiceFactory attribute against immedite and factory attributes 2-validating service elements with no children.
Having looked at the patch I have some comments regarding the messages. I'm using the terms "Wrong" and "Right" rather loosly here, for which I apologize. The theme here being "simpler is better". * DSErrorReporter_illegalServiceFactory: Wrong: The 'servicefactory' attribute MUST NOT be true if the component is a factory or an immediate component. Right: The 'servicefactory' attribute must not be true for a factory component or an immediate component. Both versions of this message are rather XML-centric for my liking, maybe two problem-centric message would be better, but clearly this would require smarter logic: - A factory component cannot be a service factory. - An immediate component cannot be a service factory. * DSErrorReporter_illegalEmptyService: Wrong: The 'service' element MUST have one or more provide elements that define the service interfaces. Right: The 'service' element must contain at least one 'provide' element. This message is also rather XML-centric, but this will only ever be issued when the user has hand-edited the XML, so it seems appropriate.
Created attachment 116080 [details] New Messages thanks simon. :) (how can I set an old patch as obsolete using Mylyn?)
done. Thanks Rafael!
Rafael, Mylyn doesn't support making attachments obselete yet. However, I think they are working on that for the next release.
