Hi, 2013/8/13 Erik Jansman <[email protected]>
> Hello all, > > That was a lot of feedback to read :). You're welcome! Don't see it as complaints and/or disagreement. I think this shows that people care for Celix and an EventAdmin implementation, which is a good thing imho! I am working on the private headers with the function declarations. I > didn't think they would contribute to the discussion so i have left them > out. But I will have a look at the formatting and naming in the header > files. only in the constants I am unsure what to do with those since they > are part of the spec (113.12.5 public interface EventConstants). I think this is one of the parts where we (the Native-OSGi guys) have to come up with a clever solution. Most likely it will be something like a prefix for all those constants. Much like we already do for several other constant values (or enums). For example the enum BundleState has BUNDLE_ACTIVE while the spec says that the class Bundle has a field ACTIVE. Again in these cases try to follow the mapping, ie class Bundle has field ACTIVE, so Celix has BUNDLE_ACTIVE. One small note, in Celix I used an enum, while in Java it is a static field (I assume this is because there was no enum in java before 1.5). For the EventAdmin constants it then can be something like EVENT_ADMIN_BUNDLE etc. Anyway, in this case I think Celix is more leading then the spec, since not doing something like this might be a issue in use. -- Met vriendelijke groet, Alexander Broekhuis
