Daniel Stenberg wrote: >> I find it ridiculous for our examples to depend on configuration >> information for the library. > > I don't. Well, to be specific: it doesn't depend on "configuration > information for the library", the examples depend on "configuration > information" period.
It's a bad idea for more reasons.. The examples make no attempt at dealing with systems where some particular functionality that the example needs is missing, and neither should it. I don't think the point is to have ultra portable examples if that is not trivially possible. The primary point should be to demonstrate how to use the library, even if that means that a few of the examples will not build on every platform. But in any case I actually don't think there is a big problem with portability in the examples. They are all simple, and hopefully it's enough to cover Windows vs. the rest of the supported systems. > If you can write a full set of *portable* examples without the use of > configure -- or something configure-like -- then please go ahead and show > us direct_tcpip.c builds for Windows and Linux. I would very much appreciate to hear if it builds also on other platforms that people have access to. > as that's not how our code is currently done. Right now the examples > need something that tells them a bit about what's working and what > isn't working in the environment where the examples are built/run. Are you sure? Where do the examples handle the case where stuff isn't working? And finally do you consider it important that they *do* handle those cases? > Doing "grep HAVE_ example/*.c" should give a quick idea of what I'm > talking about. Sure, I've looked a lot at the examples. There are many other ways they can be improved too IMO. //Peter _______________________________________________ libssh2-devel http://cool.haxx.se/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libssh2-devel
