Mailing-List: contact celix-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: celix-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of s.zelzer@dkfz-heidelberg.de
 designates 193.174.53.139 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <51B8E3C1.7070106@dkfz-heidelberg.de>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 23:10:25 +0200
From: Sascha Zelzer <s.zelzer@dkfz-heidelberg.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: celix-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Native-OSGi] Progress update
References: 
 <CA+T-u8d5MNSJ8pZNbhLLdW1eBVop8V225zy8ODDL+XWw4_UGEQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+T-u8d5MNSJ8pZNbhLLdW1eBVop8V225zy8ODDL+XWw4_UGEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,

I just wanted to confirm that I think moving forward with the Celix 
project and extending it to support C++ is an important step.

To get started, we should probably discuss the directory layout of the 
Celix code repository. With respect to a (hypothetical) C/C++ OSGi spec, 
we could first try make the distinction between interfaces and 
implementation apparent at the directory level.  A first (incomplete) 
shot of mine trying to cope with these new requirements looks like this:

cmake
  ...
framework/  <-- current Celix C implementation
framework++/  <-- new Celix C++ stuff
   |---- wrapped/  <-- C++ implementation using the existing C impl.
   L---- native/   <-- independent C++ implementation (for experimentation)
  ...
osgi/
  |---- framework/
  |      |---- include/
  |      |      L---- osgi/
  |      |             |---- BundleContext.hxx   <-- C++ interface
  |      |             L---- bundle_context.h  <-- C interface
  |      L---- src/
  |---- cm/
  |      |---- include/
  |      |      L---- osgi/
  .      |             L---- cm/
  .      |                    |---- ConfigurationAdmin.hxx
  .      |                    L---- configuration_admin.h
  -      L---- src/


I tried to just add stuff on top of the existing repository to keep the 
impact low. With the second-level dirs, we could also add more 
sub-directories by e.g. having "c" and "cpp" folders below 
osgi/framework/ , but I thought trying to keep the hierarchy from 
getting too deep is better. We would still have to figure out how C and 
C++ implementations of service specifications could be marked as such 
and distinguished from each other (as long as these implementations are 
not contained in their own repository).

I would be more than happy to contribute the work done in the Native 
OSGi directory so far (especially the C++ interfaces [1]).

Looking forward to the discussions!


Thanks,

Sascha


[1] 
https://github.com/abroekhuis/NativeOSGi/tree/master/src/api/cpp/include/osgi

On 05/22/2013 09:17 AM, Alexander Broekhuis wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Quite some time ago there was already something mentioned about Native-OSGi
> [1]. To recap: Native-OSGi is an effort to create a common specification
> for OSGi in C and C++. This effort was started by the CTK Plugin Framework,
> nOSGi and Apache Celix and although it has been rather quiet, there has
> been a lot of progress.
>
> This progress is not as much on the technical front, but more on the
> procedural front. During our initial talks we were asked if it would be
> worthwhile to write the Native-OSGi specification as an OSGi Alliance RFC.
> For us this meant a big boost in confidence wrt the specification. So of
> course we said yes to this!
>
> So in the past period we have been working on a RFP which is the first step
> towards writing the RFC for Native-OSGi. And now about a week ago this RFP
> has been published for the general public to read, discuss and comment on
> [2].
>
> For this work we would like to use Celix (and the Celix project) as home
> for, and as, the reference implementation. While Celix is writtin in C,
> Native-OSGi also specifies a C++ implementation, as such we do like to
> extend Celix to also support C++, but also like to start some discussion
> wrt a implementation in C++.
>
> So I would like to invite everyone to read and comment to the RFP on [2],
> but also would like to hear your comments regarding Celix and Native-OSGi
> and as Reference implementation as a reply to this mail.
>
> Thanks!
>
> [1]: http://incubator.markmail.org/thread/7rqtyp2so2duapfy
> [2]: https://www.osgi.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165
>