Re: [libredwg] Reply to review about proposal

[gagan]

On 5/24/13, Rodrigo Rodrigues da Silva <address@hidden> wrote:

<snip>

> API should be please step in. The point is that my approach doesn't
> exclude a more functional API in the future.

<snip>

> in a higher level c-ish way:
>
> Dwg_Object_LAYER * layer;
>
> int error = dwg_get_obj_layer(obj, &layer); //higher level c api

I will use C and will develop API as in above example.

> another example (I've implemented it already, I guess)
>
> int layer_count = dwg_get_layer_count(&dwg_data);

Is this in higher level.


<snip>

> applications" in general are against GNU policies. People should be
> able to do computing in their own machines. See [0] for more
> information.

Ok Sir.

> In general, my opinion about this proposal is: forget about DXF and
> CGI; focus on the high level C API, fix the handle system if you can
> (you'll stumble across handles pointing nowhere while writing the API)
> and improve the SVG converter (which is part of libredwg just as an
> example) using this API. Of course a DWG 2 DXF is desirable, but it
> should be written out of the scope of this project. And I agree with
> you, if you are not comfortable with the core please keep going with
> the API.

I am now striking off the DXF and CGI part. I will mainly concentrate
on High Level C API.
Handles are not an important part, after searching on internet I got
that handles are just hexdecimal codes and they must be unique for
every entity and object. So they can be created manually also. the
programs which convert from pdf , ps or svg to dxf they manually
generate handles so aren't of such high priority concern. High
concentration will be on creating the high level API.

> PS: If it is OK for everyone, I would like to mentor this proposal,
> otherwise HSRai will have to take care of 2.

Oh Thankyou ^_^. I feel very lucky to be mentored by you.

-- 
Thanks
Gaganjyot