2013-09-01 19:31 keltezéssel, Russ Allbery írta:
Gémes Géza <g...@kzsdabas.hu> writes:
Okay, then should wrap around the command line tools then, in the hope,
that some day they will get rewritten to use a library I (or someone
else) can use? BTW. I'm fine wit it for now.
I think it's also worth noting that it's rather difficult to write
high-quality bindings with SWIG, since SWIG forces the language into a
C-like mode and doesn't give you enough flexibility to adjust the calling
conventions to be more native to the language that you're binding. By
choosing to use SWIG instead of writing native bindings, you will limit
the possible quality of the end result below where it could be, and it
will be impossible to achieve the best quality without mostly throwing
things out and starting again from scratch without SWIG.
It may still be the expedient approach, but it's an inherent limitation.
The advantage of the swig approach is not just speed, but the ability (I
don't plan to exploit it) to use the same interface for many more
languages. Although writing native python bindings were and still are
under consideration too.
Cheers
Geza Gemes
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
