On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 18:16 -0500, Colin Walters wrote: >On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 20:52 +0000, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote: >>On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 15:20 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote: >>>I have written up a draft spec for the format of the binary metadata >>>to back up the repository api which I posted earlier. I hope to have >>>some initial code implementing both of these soon. >>> >>>Comments highly appreciated, >> >> OK, I probably missed something but, exactly how are language bindings >>supposed to get the actual API function pointers? All I can see is >>function name. Should we use dlsym() (or glib equivalent abstraction)? > >c_name: The symbol which can be used to obtain the function pointer with dlsym(). > >So yes. Right, I did miss that. I just read "in diagonal"... > >> Once we get the function pointer, are we supposed to use libffi to >>call the function with the actual parameters? > >Hmm. That is a problem. Perhaps we could provide a way to easily >generate marshallers for functions in the introspection data on the >client end. It's a little unclear to me how this would integrate into >compilation. > >I guess languages like Java/C# will already be using libffi or >equivalent and so this won't be an issue. I'm not saying libffi is bad, if we have computer generated prototype descriptions. Manually using libffi is more of a problem due to the human tendency to make mistakes... Another concern about libffi is portability. But I looked at the home page and it seems to be fairly portable, so event that may not be much of a problem. I just wanted these things to be clear. No point in agreeing on high-level interfaces if we can't get lower-level details to work. Regards. -- Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro <gjc inescporto pt> <gustavo users sourceforge net> The universe is always one step beyond logic.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature