[Parted-edge] Language bindings.

[David Cantrell]

On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 04:37 +0530, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> > > There were a few grey areas like how to provide the basic 1 to 1
> > > bindings, and the object-oriented bindings on top of them. A special
> > > case is that of the C++ bindings. Since libparted is already natively
> > > in C, how do we do the C++ bindings? Libpartedpp
> > > (http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/libpartedpp) already provides a
> > > hand-coded implementation.
> 
> > Perhaps we can incorporate what this project has done and expand it from
> > there.
> 
> I guess we should co-ordinate with the libpartedpp developers
> (chrisime_at_gnome_dot_org, and chrizel_at_gmx_dot_net) regarding
> this. No use duplicating effort and wasting it. One of the major
> concerns about hand written bindings was the issue of maintainability.
> That can be solved if the libpartedpp folks agree to look after the
> C++ bindings in Parted. If they do not, then I can volunteer. :-)

Absolutely.  What I envision is developers who are responsible for
specific sets of bindings.  We have the Python person (or team), the one
for C++, and so on.  Hand written bindings do affect the issue of
maintainability, but if we go with auto-generated bindings, we affect
the issue of accountability.  I'd much rather the parted project spend
their efforts writing good bindings by hand that we know work well.
This is already done by the external projects that we seek to
incorporate...and it works well for them.

> > I am not in favor of automatically generated bindings.  I'd rather write
> > them by hand and maintain them that way.  Autogenerated code is too
> > unprofessional and sloppy, IMHO.
> 
> The possibility of writing a customised binding generator for
> libparted was also proposed. What about that? Personally I do not like
> it, since we would be duplicating the efforts of the SWIG team.

Yeah, this idea seems like a waste of time to me.  In the time we'd
spend developing the generation tool, we could have written bindings.

> I prefer hand-written bindings too.

Sounds good.

-- 
David Cantrell <dcantrell at redhat.com>
Red Hat / Westford, MA
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/parted-edge/attachments/20070215/06bb5c11/attachment.pgp