RE: [DotGNU]extension APIs (was Re: [Website]Preparing for dotgnu meet-a-thon)

[James Mc Parlane]

> Gopal V wrote:
> > Wrap all and every native API you like !.. I'll be fixing 
> my pinvoke.sh
> > to be slightly more advanced ...
> 
> Hate to say it, but it would be much nicer if we had 
> pnet-built, pure IL 
> libs. That way, an extension would be an extension, and a developer 
> could always rely on *every* DotGNU. lib being on *every* 
> box. None of this
> 
> pnetlib requires
> libxml2
> openssl
> gtk
> libguile
> GNU MP
> Mesa

The flip side of this argument is, why replicate what already works, is
maintained by other equally dedicated groups, and would arguably run much(?)
faster until dot.gnu has JIT compiler capabilities on par with GCC's
optomiser.

I think that having pure pnetlib implementations would be a good thing.. but
I also think that being able to say.. look.. dot.gnu its here.. its now..
and its based on libs that are already out there and running on production
servers.