[ECOS] kernel API

Nick Garnett nickg@ecoscentric.com
Wed Apr 23 14:32:00 GMT 2003

Sergei Organov <osv@javad.ru> writes:

> Jonathan Larmour <jifl@eCosCentric.com> writes:
> > Koeller, T. wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > For all the reasons listed above, I am raising the
> > > topic again. My proposal is to award the status of
> > > an officially supported API to the C++ kernel API, too.
> > 
> > The problem is that we have to have flexibility to change how the kernel
> > _implementation_ works, even if the _interface_ has to say the same. Right
> > now the C++ stuff is just directly what is required by the implementation.
> > Defining the internal API to be "official" will tie our hands unreasonably
> > in the future if the API is to have any stability (and stability is one of
> > the defining features of an API really!).
> Besides, the C++ stuff has a rather boring deficiency. I do use C++ stuff
> directly (through my own C++ wrappers), but I still can't find any reasonable
> answer to the question why condvars and mutexes have been put into the same
> header 'mutex.hxx'. I don't think anybody would expect to find a
> 'ConditionVariable' class in a 'mutex' header ;)

The implementations are in the same file, so they also share a header.
This is because they constitute a single synchronization mechanism,
and therefore belong together. 

Nick Garnett                    eCos Kernel Architect
http://www.ecoscentric.com/     The eCos and RedBoot experts

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

More information about the Ecos-discuss mailing list