celix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gerrit Binnenmars <gerritbinnenm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Framework API
Date Fri, 24 May 2013 22:14:59 GMT
Op 23-5-2013 9:27, Alexander Broekhuis schreef:
> Hi all,
>> I don't have any objections to this.
>> I also don't see a cleaner solution without resolving to structs with
>> functions pointers or struct inheritance. struct inheritance you already
>> mentioned and for structs with functions pointers will make thinks - in my
>> opinion - also unclear.
> I'll update the bundle code to check if the bundle is the framework or not,
> and forward the call accordingly.
Alexander, as soon as things get more complicated and polymorphism is 
required again the struct with function
pointers is preferred according to me. The readability is still 
acceptable. It is used all over the Linux kernel.
> A second followup question: Felix uses something they call systembundle
> activators [1], they provide a rather clean way of embedding the framework.
> Is this something we would like to have in Celix?
> Without systembundle activators, the non-OSGi application has to use the
> frameworkbundle to retrieve a BundleContext and work with it. This works
> without a problem, but from a code point of view it can become messy.
> Having systembundle activators makes this cleaner, since the framework
> takes care of calling the activators. This makes it possible to have a bit
> more separated implementation for the non-OSGi app.
> What do you guys think?
> [1]:
> http://felix.apache.org/site/apache-felix-framework-launching-and-embedding.html#ApacheFelixFrameworkLaunchingandEmbedding-embedding
This is a very useful extension for Celix. It can be very useful for a 
lot of legacy code.

Greetings Gerrit

View raw message