Karl Pauls wrote:
> On second thought, I guess it is sufficient to only register an
> UPnPEventListener in the bridge in case that there is at least one
> EventAdmin present and at least one EventHandler interested in a
> matching topic.
>
> That way you end-up with two levels of degradation. First, in case no
> bridging is needed, the bridge shouldn't be installed. Second, in case
> bridging is potentially needed it is only done if at least one
> EventAdmin and one interested EventHandler is available.
>
> I don't think that it makes much sense to do anything more
> sophisticated then that. It is a small change that I could commit as
> soon as we have consensus.
>
> What do you think?
>
Hi Karl,
I think that there is problem, that is: the bridge should have the
permision: org.osgi.service.event.EventHandler, GET, that usually is not
need by an event publisher.
To avoid the super right issue the bridge won't be able to set up an
event publisher on demand(only when an even handler will be avaiable on
the Framework) and that will end up to a degradation of the OSGi host
and also of the REAL UPnP Network(I mean the set of device connected on
network that are shown as imported on the OSGi network)
Stefano "Kismet" Lenzi
