Re: collaboration on boost::ruby
David Abrahams <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.boost.langbinding |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Rene Rivera <[email protected]> writes: > Tom Jordan wrote: >> On 10/26/05, Rene Rivera <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>Perhaps a simple binding to a C interface, think simplified >>>COM, would be good to do. Ideas, and volunteers ;-), welcome. >> That has potential. >> Although as Alan said XPCOM maybe better. > > It has been a long time since I even glanced at XPCOM so I took a quick > look... Yea, ah, hm, IMO it would be simpler to implement JNI bindings > than XPCOM bindings :-\ > >> Can I make the general claim that once a binding interface >> has been made for a class heirarchy, it is expected to be able >> to recompile to targets: python, lua, ruby, .... > > That's the hope. Reality is usually domain dependent. Actually, no recompilation should be needed. The idea is that you compile one binding using a language-independent front end, and you simply use the appropriate backend to bind to the actual language(s) you want to use. www.boost-consulting.com/writing/langbinding.ppt -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc. Get Certified Today * Register for a JBoss Training Course Free Certification Exam for All Training Attendees Through End of 2005 Visit http://www.jboss.com/services/certification for more information