02.02.2014, 02:45, "Fred van Stappen" <fi...@hotmail.com>: >> > Yep, thanks Michael. >> > >> > Hum, may i export dynamic array ? >> >> No, you'll need to export these as (typed) pointers and a count. >> >> Regards, >> Sven > > Re-Aaaaargh, ok, (and i understand now why the library-examples are so simple > :-) ). > > Many thanks for that brilliant explanations. > > Ok, so i have to re-consider all the unit and forget the oop way and re-write > more procedural (Yes/No ?).
I think it should be layered. I tried to visualize the idea; take a look plz http://s17.postimg.org/oc24gbc27/Untitled_Diagram.png One should not write all units in procedural style to make library accessible from other languages. A better approach is to create API layers. For example to make FPC library accessible from Java and C# consider creating the following layers: FPC Library core <-> FPC Library procedural layer Procedural layer to Java OO Procedural layer to C# it should be like first API descends from OO level with FPC objects to procedural layer to make it accessible from java, then there should be java layer which "converts" it back from procedural flattened level to OO level with Java objects. AFAIK some libraries are designed like this. To further generalize the idea, consider this scheme: Language A OO <-> Language A proc. <-> dynamic lib <-> Language B proc. <-> Language B OO So the point is: of course you should NOT rewrite ALL units. Create a procedural bridge instead and then bridges for other languages like I tried to explain Of course choosing the right approach for this task it is up to you because no one knows your library better than you _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
