Subject: RE: About the source library From: Avi Kivity <Avi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 21:20:49 +0200 |
On Friday, April 30, 1999 5:43 PM, Didier PH Martin [SMTP:martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] wrote: > > A good candidate for module interface is XPCOM. Contrary to CORBA, > XPCOM has > a single binary signature and thus, even if modules are created > with > different compilers, we can have them to interface because of this > common > binary signature. Also, because the integration with Mozilla is > greatly > simplified. Please leave the module interface out of Jade! I'd hate to be tied to yet another technology... Of course, module interfaces are there for a reason, so here's what I would do to support them: 1. Write a Jade backend which forwards all calls to Your Favorite Module Interface (YFMI). 2. Write a YFMI adapter which can connect to this backend, and presents a FotBuilder interface. 3. When a new backend is written, it can either be added directly to Jade, or to the YFMI adapter, or to Somebody Else's Favorite Module Interface. jade -t rtf # internal backend jade -t lib:postscript # shared library/dll backend jade -t lib:corba:whatever # corba-based backend 'whatever' using forwarding backend 'corba' There can be thousands upon thousands of colons on that line... :-) - Avi DSSSList info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: About the source library, Avi Kivity | Thread | Help Wanted: DSSSL Analyst, Chris Maden |
Re: About the source library, Joerg Wittenberger | Date | An article about Tony Graham librar, Didier PH Martin |
Month |