Re: [Bluez-devel] Announce : BlueZ-based implemantation of JSR82

[Julien Campana <juliencampana@yahoo.fr>]

Am Di, den 25.05.2004 schrieb Marcel Holtmann um 17:07:
> Hi Julien,

Hi Marcel,

> 
> > There are main reason why I rewrote some BlueZ functions is that:
> > - Functions like "sdp_service_search_attr_req" return a list of
> > sdp_record_t. If I had to parse these sdp_record_t  in order to
> > construct the requested Java Objects, this would have been an amazing
> > amount of switch or if statement. The best solution was therefore to
> > directly send the bytes to the java implementation.
> 
> put this problem up in a seperate thread on the mailing list and tell
> how the Java Objects have to look like. We should find a better solution
> for that.

I will post this today or tomorrow. Furthermore, I will provide the
HOW-TO help file next week (sorry for the delay, but I currently have a
lot of work to do!). 


> > > What I also don't wanna use is somekind of "de.avetana.bluetooth" vendor
> > > extensions. If something is not possible in pure Java JSR-82, sorry not
> > > my bad ;)
> > 
> > JSR-82 provides just the minimal amount of classes. It lets the
> > programmer use "background classes" but this is transparent for the
> > end-user (I will give some example of this transparency in the future
> > how-to). These de.avetana.bluetooth.* classes are really needed to fully
> > implement all javax.bluetooth.* classes.
> 
> You must explain this to me in detail, because I don't understand why.
> Actually I think we should avoid this.

In order to explain this, I will take an example:
JSR-82 provides an interface called ServiceRecord. The role of the class
could be compared with the role of the sdp_record_t of BlueZ: storing
attributes and related DataElements. 
But no implementation of ServiceRecord is provided, it is just an
interface. 
Moreover, a look at the description of some JSR82 methods like
LocalDevice.getRecord() shows that two kinds of ServiceRecord are
needed: a "local" ServiceRecord and a "remote" ServiceRecord. This two
ServiceRecord must differ (for example, the "local" Service Record does
not implement some methods like getConnectionURL()). 
That's why I had to provide two different implementation of
ServiceRecord (LocalServiceRecord and RemoteServiceRecord). 
But if you use the javax.bluetooth.* api, you will mostly manipulate
ServiceRecord objects without even knowing if they are instance of
Local- or RemoteServiceRecord.

> 
> > > The native interface should only be a wrapper. Let's talk about the
> > > stuff and put some of it back to the Bluetooth library where it should
> > > belong.
> > 
> > I would say that 90% of the native interface is today a wrapper. Only
> > the service search uses home-made-functions derived from the BlueZ code.
> 
> As said already, lets fix this in the Bluetooth library itself. I know
> that SDP itself is a horrible mess of object oriented stuff, but I think
> we will find a solution for it.

Thanks!

Regards, 

Julien
> 
> Regards
> 
> Marcel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
> Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. 
> Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Bluez-devel mailing list
> Bluez-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bluez-devel