Hi, On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:23:34AM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 12:05:26AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net > wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 07:07:35PM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
> > > Another interesting possibility would be to let the code modules > > > be translators themselves. It would be kind of nice keeping it > > > all the needed functionality in a single file. Though I'm not > > > sure how it would be implemented. On the flip side it would mean > > > that code would be shared through a trivfs-like library, instead > > > of in a separate program which is usually prettier. > > > > No idea what you mean... > > Instead of proxying a normal .so file, the translator would allow the > client to load parts of the translator's own binary, which would > implement a mobile object. > > As I said, this would be cool in some ways, but also weird. :-) This was my *original* idea -- but then I found your suggestion to have an explicit .so that can be used both by the sender and the receiver, to be more elegant... -antrik-
