Mark configuration properties to not propagate to service properties

[bjhargrave]

Original bug ID: BZ#524 From: @bjhargrave Reported version: R4 V4.1

[bjhargrave]

Comment author: @bjhargrave

The suggested practice (see 104.4.3) of propagating configuration properties to service properties does not define a way of denoting that specific properties should NOT be propagated. We need to define a convention to denote that a configuration property should not be propagated to the service properties. This convention can then be used by Spring OSGi and SCR to determine which configuration properties to not propagate to service properties.

[bjhargrave]

Comment author: @bjhargrave

CPEG call: We agreed to amend the suggested practice in 104.4.3 to define a property naming convention such that configuration properties whose name starts with "." are not to be propagated to service properties.

Section 104.4.2 is to be modified to amend the production of property name:

property-name ::= symbolic-name | '.'symbolic-name // See 1.3.2

Section 112 (Declarative Services) must also be updated to state that DS will not propagate component properties whose name starts with "." to service properties. This may need to be done in several places (search for "service propert").

[bjhargrave]

Comment author: @pkriens

Added the text, introduced public and private properties

[bjhargrave]

Comment author: @bjhargrave

Added the text, introduced public and private properties

I don't think the terms public and private are correct. We are really not providing any privacy. I think propagating and non-propagating properties are better terms.

[bjhargrave]

Comment author: @pkriens

Hmm, I prefer the public and private because people will immediately know what is meant. If you propagate, you publish the property, if you don't you keep it private. I do not think that you can infer anything more from these words because Java uses them in a secure way.

[bjhargrave]

Comment author: niclas@hedhman.org

"public" / "hidden" ??

[bjhargrave]

Comment author: @pkriens

hidden has a negative connotation I think that private lacks. Plus they are not really hidden, they are just private to the receiving bundle. If he wants to publish them, up to him. I.e. hidden is what you can do with it, private is the state in which you provide it.

[bjhargrave]

Comment author: @pkriens

Update the DS spec to indicate private variables should not be exposed on the service properties.

[bjhargrave]

Comment author: @bjhargrave

Updated DS spec to require SCR not propagate private properties to service properties.