Re: language bindings (fs-independent quotas)

[bch%methodlogic.net@localhost]

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:50:06AM -0600, David Young wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 09:07:05AM -0600, Eric Haszlakiewicz wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 03:51:52PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 01:02:33PM +0000, David Holland wrote:
> > > > Writing language bindings for a simple and straightforward library is
> > > > a simple and straightforward undertaking.
> > > 
> > > OK, so prove it by writing a perl binding format :)
> > > I've never written a language binding, so it's not going to be
> > > straightforward for me anyway.
> > 
> > It's probably not as hard as you think:
> > http://www.swig.org/tutorial.html
> > 
> > See especially the "SWIG for the truly lazy" section, where you basically
> > just need to point it at a header file.
> > Of course, this will result in a rather raw binding, and often times it can
> > be useful to customize things to make them more natural for a particular
> > language.
> 
> I don't think it matters whether it is simple and straightforward to
> create a language binding or not.
> 
> The advantage to using some standard format for quotas, be it
> tab-delimited tables or plists, is that if you know the standard tools
> for that format, you can whip up scripts that process it in useful ways.
> No language bindings necessary.
> 
> Nhat Minh L? made a great start on stream-oriented XML tools during his
> GSoC 2009 project.  IMO, time spent fighting over plists v. "simple and
> straightforward libraries" is time better spent creating decent tools
> for current formats like XML & JSON.

Aren't these two issues orthogonal? Can't a sane C structure serialize
as JSON (or XML) and all parties be satisfied?

-bch

> Dave
> 
> -- 
> David Young
> dyoung%pobox.com@localhost    Urbana, IL    (217) 721-9981

-- 
Brad Harder
Method Logic Digital Consulting
http://methodlogic.net/
http://twitter.com/bcharder