Re: [ECOS] kernel API

[Jonathan Larmour <jifl at eCosCentric dot com>]

Koeller, T. wrote:
> The current C API appears to be a 1:1 mapping of the C++
> interfaces onto C functions, it does not provide much
> abstraction anyway.

It does because things like cyg_handle_t's and cyg_thread's are opaque (if 
people try and use the definitions in kapidata.h it's on their own head!).

The same thing would apply to a C++ API. The individual members from the 
underlying implementation would not be exposed - in fact C++'s access 
control would do this better than the C API could.

But we wouldn't be providing any more functionality than the C API really 
- just making it more efficient for C++ users, and making it fit into the 
OO paradigm better.

> I do not want to overly stress this point. I will continue to
> use the C++ API, as will others. I guess the probability of
> the C++ interfaces being removed and replaced by something
> entirely different is rather low anyway, so it is probably
> not all that important...

Well that's indeed one of the reasons why we are where we are today :-). 
But if someone wants to come up with a serious proposal for a C++ API 
(with the intention of implementing whatever results from the discussion 
:-)), naturally it will be considered!

Jifl
--
eCosCentric    http://www.eCosCentric.com/    The eCos and RedBoot experts
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[  can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln   ]-- Opinions==mine


--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss