Hi Praveen, Nagu, Mathi and Anders, Any comments on this patch? As Gary mentions below, it would e.g. make supporting long DN a lot easier. /Thanks HansN
-----Original Message----- From: Gary Lee [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: den 1 februari 2016 09:49 To: Hans Nordebäck Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Anders Widell; Minh Chau H; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for amfa: Divide amf api functions in a thin C layer and use C++ for implementation [#1673] Hi Hans I think it would be very, very nice if we got rid of SaNameT in libs/common/osaf, and replaced it with std::string. As you know, the data structures defined here are used by the agent, director and node director. There is a lot of code that copies and frees various messages (both in the common lib and director). It would make supporting long DN a lot easier, if we didn’t have to worry about SaNameT, and ‘deep copying’. Thanks Gary > On 30 Jan 2016, at 12:39 AM, Hans Nordeback <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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=272487151&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
