Summary: amfa: Divide amf api functions in a thin C layer and use C++ for implementation Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #1673 Peer Reviewer(s): Mathi, AndersW, Praveen, Nagu, Gary, Minh Pull request to: Affected branch(es): default Development branch: default
-------------------------------- Impacted area Impact y/n -------------------------------- Docs n Build system n RPM/packaging n Configuration files n Startup scripts n SAF services n OpenSAF services n Core libraries y Samples n Tests n Other n Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): --------------------------------------------- <<EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE>> changeset 20dec14de18f2f5d4095c6d2ef703893e26723d7 Author: Hans Nordeback <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 14:35:14 +0100 amfa: Divide amf api functions in a thin C layer and use C++ for implementation [#1673] The amf agent part is implemented in C and shares C data structures with amfd and amfnd, e.g. libs/common/osaf. It would be benficial if the amf agent could be split into two parts, one thin C layer that passes the call to C++ for the implementation. Then it will be significally easier to convert libs/common/osaf structures and functions to C++ and remove e.g. the use of SaNameT and support long DN. The C++ usage at the agent could be limited to follow C++98 standard to ease acceptance for applications. A patch is sent out with this change and comments are appreciated. Added Files: ------------ osaf/libs/agents/saf/amfa/include/amf_agent.h Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/libs/agents/saf/amfa/Makefile.am | 2 +- osaf/libs/agents/saf/amfa/ava_api.c | 4207 ++++++++++++++++--------------- osaf/libs/agents/saf/amfa/ava_init.c | 2 +- osaf/libs/agents/saf/amfa/include/amf_agent.h | 96 + osaf/libs/agents/saf/amfa/include/ava.h | 7 + osaf/libs/agents/saf/amfa/include/ava_cb.h | 7 + osaf/libs/agents/saf/amfa/include/ava_dl_api.h | 7 + osaf/libs/agents/saf/amfa/include/ava_hdl.h | 7 + osaf/libs/agents/saf/amfa/include/ava_mds.h | 7 + 9 files changed, 2304 insertions(+), 2038 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- <<LIST THE COMMAND LINE TOOLS/STEPS TO TEST YOUR CHANGES>> Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- <<PASTE COMMAND OUTPUTS / TEST RESULTS>> Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- <<HOW MANY DAYS BEFORE PUSHING, CONSENSUS ETC>> Arch Built Started Linux distro ------------------------------------------- mips n n mips64 n n x86 n n x86_64 y y powerpc n n powerpc64 n n Reviewer Checklist: ------------------- [Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!] Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries): ___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries that need proper data filled in. ___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push. ___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header ___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable. ___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text. ___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits. ___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files (i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc) ___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests. Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing. ___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed. ___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs. ___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits. ___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is too much content into a single commit. ___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc) ___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent; Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled. ___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded commits, or place in a public tree for a pull. ___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication of what has changed between each re-send. ___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review. ___ You have a misconfigured ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, email etc) ___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the the threaded patch review. ___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results for in-service upgradability test. ___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
