Re: CFFI module

Brad Anderson wrote:
> Fair enough.  SWIG / CFFI was the easy way out.  They have a compatibility layer, but I'll probably translate
> it.  I may develop first, then replace the bindings layer.

Keep in mind that the function bindings are the smaller part of using
the API. A larger proportion of your code will be moving data in and
out of the functions, structures, and arrays.
  
> > Still, if you'd like to contrib a FreeTDS backend
> > using UFFI, I'd certainly consider it for inclusion.
> 
> I'll see what I can do.

Good luck! If you run into UFFI questions, you can ask on the
uffi-help mail list. Also, the other backends will provide a good
template for common UFFI idioms.

-- 
Kevin Rosenberg
[email protected]