Re: [DotGNU]Pnet and Compatibility libraries

[David Sugar]

While Common C++ is meant to have low overhead, that is relative to C++ 
programming :).  There are some things I do in Common C++ for 
abstraction and compatibility for different platforms that could be done 
more purely in a much smaller C based abstraction library (in fact, I 
have one such beast, uCommon, for uLinux development, but it is a bit 
too small in what it abstracts :).  If this is something that would be 
helpful to pnet development, I would be happy to impliment a small C 
based abstraction layer for it, probably based on and expanded from the 
uCommon code.

David

Rhys Weatherley wrote:

> "Gopal.V" wrote:
>
> >        I had mentioned in one of my earlier mails that the support
> > directory in pnet acts like an abstraction layer for the platform
> > functions. John Le'Brecage brought into my view a small point --
> > the SEE *is* already using a compatibility library. So why reinvent
> > the wheel ?.
>
> The "support" layer in Pnet was designed so that it could be
> replaced with any other system interface.  If someone wants
> to build "support" on top of Common C++, then more power
> to them.
>
> The real issue is dependencies: bringing in all of Common C++
> into pnet to get a handful of utility libraries doesn't seem
> worth the effort.  If we ever get into supporting PDA's and
> such, then the dependencies must be kept to a minimum.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rhys.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://subscribe.dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/developers