Kevin Galligan wrote:
>Being the only person working on something gets old quick. I understand
>that all too well. It looks like you did a bunch of work on the interfaces,
>but they are not quite up to date with the main calling interfaces. If the
>swig library really does a better job with java (as has been stated in
>recent posts) that would be the obvious way to go (as long as performance
>and functionality are not badly hurt, which seems possible given the goal of
>universal portability). You mentioned that the method names out of the box
>from swig are ugly. I think we'd wind up in the same catch-up boat by
>re-mapping user-friendly names to the swig names whenever the interface
>changed (although it would be a completely different order of magnitude work
>wise). Maybe something that would map names on top of the swig mapped
>names? Yes, that was a joke. Maybe it would work?
>
>-Kevin
>
Having automatic naming convention should work. Could be done with
rules. Take subversion for example.
There are rules on naming global functions. Try to extract these rule
and transform it in some machine
readable format. Then formulate a conversion rule. Voila...
But, to be honest, right now I would prefer on working on other code...
Alex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Apr 13 12:41:36 2002