On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
> Doug,
>
> I was wondering whether you have looked at Inline.pm that allows you to
> embed C/C++ directly into Perl. Would it make any sense to use it in
> mod_perl sources, or is it easier for you to write directly in XS than C?
i've looked at it, neat tricks, but does not make sense for mod_perl, nor
does swig.
> Also what's your take on XS in the future of Perl/mod_perl, do you think
> it'll stick around, or is there going to be something else coming to
> replace it. I guess if I had the time to lurk around p5p I'd know the
> answer... Thanks...
have a read of modperl_design.pod, i'm preparing to commit the code right
now.
i don't expect "xs" to go away anytime soon, tho perl 6 might use
something totally different. what might go away for mod_perl is the use
of xsubpp, which is really what defines the "xs language". and that
"language" is just a set of keywords and typemap. everything else is Perl
C API, which mod_perl will continue to use of course.
both swig and Inline.pm are very generic tools. the mod_perl generator is
specifically tuned for gluing Apache and allows for complete control over
everything, providing many things neither swig or Inline.pm are designed
to do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
