[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DotGNU]Pnet and Compatibility libraries

From: David Sugar
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]Pnet and Compatibility libraries
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 21:26:56 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20010914

While Common C++ is meant to have low overhead, that is relative to C++ programming :). There are some things I do in Common C++ for abstraction and compatibility for different platforms that could be done more purely in a much smaller C based abstraction library (in fact, I have one such beast, uCommon, for uLinux development, but it is a bit too small in what it abstracts :). If this is something that would be helpful to pnet development, I would be happy to impliment a small C based abstraction layer for it, probably based on and expanded from the uCommon code.


Rhys Weatherley wrote:

"Gopal.V" wrote:

       I had mentioned in one of my earlier mails that the support
directory in pnet acts like an abstraction layer for the platform
functions. John Le'Brecage brought into my view a small point --
the SEE *is* already using a compatibility library. So why reinvent
the wheel ?.

The "support" layer in Pnet was designed so that it could be
replaced with any other system interface.  If someone wants
to build "support" on top of Common C++, then more power
to them.

The real issue is dependencies: bringing in all of Common C++
into pnet to get a handful of utility libraries doesn't seem
worth the effort.  If we ever get into supporting PDA's and
such, then the dependencies must be kept to a minimum.



Developers mailing list

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]