celix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexander Broekhuis <a.broekh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Release request and coding standards
Date Thu, 25 Apr 2013 07:11:28 GMT
Hi,


> Since a few months we (Thales) are working on "machine services" using the
> device access bundle in Celix.
> I am quite impressed by the amount of work done in the Celix framework.
>

Thanks! Good to hear it can be used.

>
> Recently I had a code review of this machine service implementation and
> had a few questions on the coding convention.
> Can someone tell me which standard is used for Celix?
>

There is no formal standard that is currently used.


>
> Especially, I am wondering why a lot of typedefs are defined as pointer to
> struct.
> In the functions that use such a typedef parameter a double indirection is
> needed.


Do you mean the "constructor" functions? Since it is an output parameter
there the double indirection is needed.


> This is not obvious from the code and not visible in the name of the type.
> Is it an idea to use _pt if the typedef is actually a pointer?
>

I don't have any objections to this, maybe someone else? In either case,
could you file a feature request for this?


>
> The only exceptions to the used convention are:
>  celix_status_t which is not a pointer.


celix_status_t is a typedef of an int, it doesn't make much sense to use a
pointer here.


> ACTIVATOR
> MANIFEST
> Shall we also change these last two?
>

This is more or less a bug. When we started with celix all types were
uppercase. This has gradually changed to the newer format. These are some
leftovers. I still have some outstanding code changes I need to commit.
Those might be fixed in there as well.
But could you file a bug for these 2? That way we can keep track of the
changes.


>
> Another issue, although not that important: Most files use the Linux
> linefeed convention but a few files are Windows file (with carriage
> linefeed)
> For example: celixbool.h + framework_exports
>

I've never had a problem with this (since I use Eclipse CDT), but I can see
how this might be strange when working with other editors. Please also file
a bug for this. Small change, and can be done without much effort.


>
> Final question: is there any plan for a new release? This would be helpful
> to start using Celix in a product.
>

There is no date yet. But if Pepijn does have some time, I think we can try
to make a list of issues we want to fix for a next release. I'd love to see
a release where the coding style has been fixed, and where windows support
has been tested a bit more.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groet,

Alexander Broekhuis

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message