So for now, the best solution is to make each mapper a separate bundle. This is
a bit of extra work, but then the deployer can on a case by case basis
decide if a specific subsystem needs an event mapper.
I guess this counts as an official answer :-). I'll add a new bundle
then that takes care of the adoption. Instead of using Rick's proposed
property naming we could go with it as a bundle naming i.e.,
trunk/
org.apache.felix.eventadmin.bridge.upnp
Objections?
regards,
Karl
p.s.: Didier, in case you still like to contribute your
implementation, could you please attach it to the JIRA (marked as a
contribution)? I'll pick it up there and use it as a starting point.
In the future, the intention is that the subsystems (like UPnP)
deliver the events to Event Admin themselves.
So the spec does not define this case because we wanted it to leave
open. However, it would be nice if we had said we left it open and
showed the possibilities, sorry.
Kind regards,
Peter Kriens
>> > Hm, the problem I see with this is how do you know that a device that
>> > reads the spec differently doesn't send its events to the event admin
>> > too? Then we end-up with a situation where we have duplicated events.
>> >
>> Sure, but this is legacy since the
>> org.osgi.service.upnp.UPnPEventListener exists before R4 and EventAdmin.
KP> But how does this change things in this regard? The spec clearly
KP> states that in R4 UPnPEvents must be available through the EA. It,
KP> however, fails to mention who is responsible to do this. Moreover, it
KP> is not exactly a legacy problem (it is now, but only because the R4
KP> spec is vague) - all that would have been necessary to avoid it would
KP> have been to be specific about who is doing the adaption.
>> One more thing : an argument to add the UPnP to EA bridge inside the EA
>> implementation may be an optimization
>> in which the bridge is deactived when non EventHandler with
>> (event.topics=org/osgi/service/upnp/UPnPEvent) is registered !
>> A general-purpose dependency manager could be useful in this context !
>> Isn't it Rick ;-)
KP> Sure, that was my intention. I do the same with for example the
KP> adaption of LogService entries to events. There is no hard dependency
KP> on a LogService nor on the org.osgi.service.log package. As soon as a
KP> LogService becomes available its entries are adapted until it goes
KP> away again.
>> More over, there is the same optimization for Framework-,
>> Bundle-,Service-, and Log-Events
>> Karl, how do you tacckle that in your EA implementation ?
KP> Yes, as I was saying, that is the reason why I find it a good idea to
KP> put the UPnPEvent adaption in the EA too. As stated above, the EA has
KP> a dynamic import header for the org.osgi.service.log package and
KP> registers a service listener for LogReaders. As soon as such a service
KP> becomes available adaption is started for it until the service goes
KP> away. That way the EA has no hard dependency on any other bundle.
>> Didier
KP> O.k., let me propose the following, I integrate the bridge in the EA
KP> and make it a configurable option. That way we provide the possibility
KP> to adapt all UPnPEvents in case
KP> org.apache.felix.eventadmin.AdaptUPnPEvents=true
KP> if not then we don't. Additionally, I will ask at the osgi-dev list
KP> whether there is any better approach we didn't see.
KP> Opinions?
KP> regards,
KP> Karl
KP> --
KP> Karl Pauls
KP> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Peter Kriens Tel +33467542167
9C, Avenue St. Drézéry AOL,Yahoo: pkriens
34160 Beaulieu, France ICQ 255570717
Skype pkriens Fax +1 8153772599
--
Karl Pauls
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
