Hi, Thanks for the comments.
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:45 AM Gerrit Binnenmars < gerritbinnenm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Pepijn, > > Very interesting and indeed I think Celix can benefit from this. I also > like the fact that the interface between C and C++ is very minimal and > clear in this way. > Looking at the code I noticed you need at least C++11, please state that > explicitly. > Good point. Will add this. > > Questions that I have: > 1. can I (or should I) deploy the C and C++ dependency manager in the same > framework? > Yes you can and also should be able to do this. A big advantages of service-oriented programming is that you can focus on the interfaces instead of underlining implementations. Adding C++ (or other languages) to the mix, should mean that you can provided/consume services in a preferred language and the rest of the application can be unaware of this. > 2. I notice you use the STL library. Does your code follow the guidelines > for embedded/realtime programming and the use of STL? > (look on the Internet for discussion using new/delete and memory > fragmentation, std::list<> usage and automatic resizing, no exception > handling, no RTTI) > Not yet, but that is a valid remark. I think it is wise to disable RTTI and exceptions in the C++ dependency manager and then is it up to users of the dependency manager to decide to use exception in their code / services. I did a quick search but could not find anything useful on std::list usage, automatic resizing ect, could you provide some links. This can help in focusing the discussion. > 3. Should the header files not have a distinct extension? > For this I followed the google C++ guideline [1]. If I am correct, for cmake it is crucial to have a clear discriminator between C (.c) and C++ (.cc) source files (translation units). [1] https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Header_Files > > Another point I want to mention to everyone: there has been some activity > to integrate RUST with Celix by Rogier Velting, see > https://github.com/RogierWV/rust-celix > > Thanks for pointing that out. > > With kind regards, > > Gerrit > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Pepijn Noltes <pepijnnol...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > I few day ago I pushed the Apache Celix C++ dependency manager [1] to the > > development branch. > > I have been busy with experimenting how to support other languages to > Celix > > for quite some time, but I finally convinced that this is best done with > > use of the dependency manager. > > > > The C++ dependency manager is build on top of the C dependency manager. > > I have chosen to add C++ support using C dependency manager approach > > instead of wrapper the complete Celix API for the following reasons: > > > > 1. The Dependency Manager is arguably the most convenient way to interact > > with services and covers most uses cases. > > 2. It eliminates the necessity to port and maintain the rest of the > (large) > > API to C++. > > 3. Because the relatively small codebase needed to build on top of the C > > dependency manager this opens the possibility to support other languages > > (e.g. D, Swift). In my opinion one of the benefits of C as programming > > language it that can act as a common denominator for interoperability > > between a range of languages. > > > > With the C++ dependency manager it is possible to provide C and C++ > > services, where C++ services are registered by providing the object > > instance in combination with an interface name (more like in java). It is > > also possible to specify C and/or C++ service dependencies. > > If a service is register as a C++ service the C++ dependency manager will > > ensure that a properties "lang=c++" is added. Also when C++ service > > dependency is specified the C++ dependency manager ensures the filter is > > extended with "(lang=c++)". > > > > I think Celix can benefit, in terms of popularity, from adding C++ as > > supported language. I also still think that Apache Celix should primarily > > focus on providing services in the form of C services (e.g. struct of > > function pointers) as this should be the common denominator. > > > > Any comment or though are welcome. Also feel free to have a more in depth > > look at the C++ dependency manager and let me know what you think. > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/celix/tree/develop/dependency_manager_cxx > > > > Greetings, > > Pepijn > > >
