On Dec 2, 2010, at 4:38 PM, Bernd Kallies wrote:
>> 1.1 is pretty close to done. If you wanted to shift your work to be based on 1.1, I think you'd be pretty safe.
>
> I'll try. Currently my wrapper implements only basic things, so there
> should be no problem (because it is a wrapper, only). Problems would
> arise when one wants to extend the number of implemented methods.
Cool.
> To be
> honest, I expected some remarks about the completeness of the wrapper.
My personal bias is always reading from the objects; I rarely use many of the accessors (simply because hardware may not be uniform). That's why I thought your first set of accessors was sufficient.
My $0.02: those are ok. Go with that for a first version. Then get some real-world users and see what they ask for.
>> Would you -- or your employer, if they own the code that you generate -- be able to sign this document?
>
> The answer is yes.
Great!
FWIW, Samuel made a good point to me off-list earlier today: keeping language bindings as a separate package is worthwhile because then they can use their own language-native build/install/packaging tools rather than have to deal with the GNU autotools. That's a relatively good argument to put stuff on CPAN (and/or push them via RPMs to the distros).
At a bare minimum, I believe that if you host perl bindings on CPAN (and Red Hat Guy hosts python bindings elsewhere), we can definitely link to that site from our web site, README, ...etc.
--
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres_at_[hidden]
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
|
![[Flag]](../../../../../community/mirrors/flag-us.gif){kind=small}