Hi,
> Since a few months we (Thales) are working on "machine services" using the > device access bundle in Celix. > I am quite impressed by the amount of work done in the Celix framework. > Thanks! Good to hear it can be used. > > Recently I had a code review of this machine service implementation and > had a few questions on the coding convention. > Can someone tell me which standard is used for Celix? > There is no formal standard that is currently used. > > Especially, I am wondering why a lot of typedefs are defined as pointer to > struct. > In the functions that use such a typedef parameter a double indirection is > needed. Do you mean the "constructor" functions? Since it is an output parameter there the double indirection is needed. > This is not obvious from the code and not visible in the name of the type. > Is it an idea to use _pt if the typedef is actually a pointer? > I don't have any objections to this, maybe someone else? In either case, could you file a feature request for this? > > The only exceptions to the used convention are: > celix_status_t which is not a pointer. celix_status_t is a typedef of an int, it doesn't make much sense to use a pointer here. > ACTIVATOR > MANIFEST > Shall we also change these last two? > This is more or less a bug. When we started with celix all types were uppercase. This has gradually changed to the newer format. These are some leftovers. I still have some outstanding code changes I need to commit. Those might be fixed in there as well. But could you file a bug for these 2? That way we can keep track of the changes. > > Another issue, although not that important: Most files use the Linux > linefeed convention but a few files are Windows file (with carriage > linefeed) > For example: celixbool.h + framework_exports > I've never had a problem with this (since I use Eclipse CDT), but I can see how this might be strange when working with other editors. Please also file a bug for this. Small change, and can be done without much effort. > > Final question: is there any plan for a new release? This would be helpful > to start using Celix in a product. > There is no date yet. But if Pepijn does have some time, I think we can try to make a list of issues we want to fix for a next release. I'd love to see a release where the coding style has been fixed, and where windows support has been tested a bit more. -- Met vriendelijke groet, Alexander Broekhuis
