Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Nit

[Tom Lord]

    > From: Joshua Haberman <address@hidden>

    > On Sun, 2003-10-19 at 11:27, Charles Duffy wrote:
    > > On Sun, 2003-10-19 at 13:11, Joshua Haberman wrote:
    > > > 2) deserializers have to be written for every target language

    > > Why's that?

    > > Why couldn't someone interested in having a library interface (*ahem*)
    > > write just *one* deserializer exposed as a C library which could then be
    > > used by any language-specific interface?

    > Funny, this is exactly the argument for making libarch wrappable.  The
    > answer I've gotten is equivalent to:

    > "Because then the deserializer will take up memory and bugs in it could
    > make the language-specific interface crash.  The deserializer needs to
    > be in its own process."

I think you're just confused.   The deserializer cduffy is talking
about goes in the same process as the higher level application.   The
serializer is in a separate process.

cduffy's idea is an alternative to writing calls to `exec()' tla in
python, then in ruby, then in scheme......    put the `exec()' foo in
a c library and use swig instead.

    > Actually it's a pretty close analogy.  Program A wants to perform
    > operation B for which an implementation already exists.  Using B
    > involves exchanging non-trivial data structures.  

No, in the case of arch, we're talking about pretty trivial data structures.


-t