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.
True, but I think that this is acceptable. The bridge does by definition need both, org.osgi.service.EventAdmin[GET] and org.osgi.service.upnp.UPnPEventHandler[PUT] permission, anyways. Now it will need an org.osgi.service.event.EventHandler[GET] permission too.
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)
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Do you mean that we need to weigh-up whether we require an additional permission for the bridge v.s. causing UPnP network load? I do think the additional permission is acceptable in this case.
Stefano "Kismet" Lenzi
regards, Karl -- Karl Pauls [EMAIL PROTECTED]
