1. RE: Standardisation between Win libraries
Phew, I guess it's more difficult than I first thought.
So, basically we're looking at many MS Windows (ignoring Linux at the
moment - sorry) libraries, that each do much the same thing, but with
differences (bits missed, etc). Each of them written to manage the
tasks that the writer wanted to do at the time, but not complete enough
for a wider range of tasks. Each of them sits somewhere on the Euphoria
Path and there can, potentially, be many copies of them (Lots of people
supply a copy of win32Lib, ewin32API, win32R, etc; along with their
application) - I already have 12 copies of win32lib that came in various
zips.
I agree with Derek on the sensibilities of not simply including ALL the
function even if not needed. I'm not sure about the absolute need for
cross-platform All-In-One type of library development - shouldn't there
be a wrapper or different set of (same name) files to be included when
going to another platform?
A more modular and heirarchical approach to the library designs is
probably what I'm trying to describe. One that would allow the base
functionality to be there, but with the ability to extend it beyond that
in various ways without touching (ie modifying) the base code. Nothing
new there - been done before in many languages.
The Standard Euphoria Library does seem to be dead, but it's a sound
idea - especially for Windows development. Looking through many files I
see repetition of so many functions and slight variations on functions
(eg. or_all() and or_all_bits() ) - that strikes me as simply a lack of
some further core libraries which we all could benefit from.
What are the benefits of each of the current Windows libraries anyway?
What are the differences? Which Library is the most used? What can be
done to help improve (and/or merge ) the libraries (or preferably one)
Still not an attack, just a discussion from a new Euphoria user who's a
little confused, having come from the C/C++/Java/PHP/ActionScript
world!! :)
2. RE: Standardisation between Win libraries
Just my take on this subject,
Choice is good !
Take a look at the windows platform and see what happens when
there is just one option. If you need other functionality or
options, you are out of luck.
For example, I've just switched my windows machines from using
the windows shell (explorer) to using Litestep instead. Now, for
Litestep there are several desktop modules, tasktray modules,
menu modules, etc. to choose from. Each with different options
and functionality. It takes some time to figure out which ones
you want to use, but in the end you get (close to) exactly what
YOU want.
I think the same goes for the Euphoria libraries: choice is good !
So my vote is "Please DON'T merge them into one".
Hans Peter Willems
3. RE: Standardisation between Win libraries
jbrown105 at speedymail.org wrote:
> Just wait until I get winux out ... hehe. ;]
>
> P.S. winux is an attempt of mine to provide access to an emulation of
> the Win32API
> to Linux programs. Once I get it up and running then it should
> theoreticly
> make porting of such libraries as win32lib to linux trivial.
I was thinking myself to write another "wrapper"that can wrap
different libraries (on windows and linux) and make them available
to my program without changes so I could port stuff to linux fast.
It seems that your idea will solve it already 
Hans Peter Willems
4. RE: Standardisation between Win libraries
Juergen Luethje wrote:
> Yep, I totally agree.
> But please note, that modularity (if possible) increases the number of
> choices.
You got me there 
Hans Peter Willems
5. RE: Standardisation between Win libraries
jbrown105 at speedymail.org wrote:
> If I can get it to work. Basicly its an attempt to use IPC between a
> Linux
> exu program and a Windows exw program (the exw is running via WINE).
Ah.... my idea was more aimed at porting code from windows to
linux (or freeBSD for that matter). I was thinking about writing
a wrapper for win32lib and one for some linux lib, making the
interface for both wrappers identical so I could simply plug in
the appropriate wrapper to have my programs running on both
platforms.
<snip>
> PS I'd be grateful for any help on this and will give the code on
> demand.
I don't think I can help you there. TCP stuff is not realy my
strong point.
Hans Peter Willems
6. RE: Standardisation between Win libraries
jbrown105 at speedymail.org wrote:
> > Ah.... my idea was more aimed at porting code from windows to
> > linux (or freeBSD for that matter). I was thinking about writing
> > a wrapper for win32lib and one for some linux lib, making the
> > interface for both wrappers identical so I could simply plug in
> > the appropriate wrapper to have my programs running on both
> > platforms.
>
> Actually that was the idea behind Llama, which I am also working on.
> (Llama
> is the Linux/BSD wrapper for Win32lib.)
Wow, so much great stuff already in development
As soon as I find the time I'll look into Llama.
Hans Peter Willems
7. RE: Standardisation between Win libraries
- Posted by gertie at visionsix.com
Jul 27, 2003
On 27 Jul 2003, at 16:46, Peter Willems wrote:
>
>
> jbrown105 at speedymail.org wrote:
>
> > If I can get it to work. Basicly its an attempt to use IPC between a
> > Linux
> > exu program and a Windows exw program (the exw is running via WINE).
>
> Ah.... my idea was more aimed at porting code from windows to
> linux (or freeBSD for that matter). I was thinking about writing
> a wrapper for win32lib and one for some linux lib, making the
> interface for both wrappers identical so I could simply plug in
> the appropriate wrapper to have my programs running on both
> platforms.
>
> <snip>
> > PS I'd be grateful for any help on this and will give the code on
> > demand.
>
> I don't think I can help you there. TCP stuff is not realy my
> strong point.
Did anyone note the latest security bugs in ALL windows OSs for RPC,
which incidently isn't IPC, but RPC does use TCP.
Kat
8. RE: Standardisation between Win libraries
- Posted by eugtk at yahoo.com
Jul 27, 2003
--- Peter Willems <peter at integratedmoves.com> wrote:
> Ah.... my idea was more aimed at porting code
> from windows to
> linux (or freeBSD for that matter). I was
> thinking about writing
> a wrapper for win32lib and one for some linux
> lib, making the
> interface for both wrappers identical so I could
> simply plug in
> the appropriate wrapper to have my programs
> running on both
> platforms.
An interesting idea, but one which would probably be
unappealing to both Windows and Linux users, because
each platform has some very good features which simply
aren't available on the other. Anything written
to run on both platforms would be limited to only
those things they both have in common, and would
thereby lack the niceties that users have become
accustomed to.
Regards,
Irv
9. RE: Standardisation between Win libraries
gertie at visionsix.com wrote:
>
>
> On 27 Jul 2003, at 16:46, Peter Willems wrote:
>
> >
> > jbrown105 at speedymail.org wrote:
> >
> > > If I can get it to work. Basicly its an attempt to use IPC between a
> > > Linux
> > > exu program and a Windows exw program (the exw is running via WINE).
> >
> > Ah.... my idea was more aimed at porting code from windows to
> > linux (or freeBSD for that matter). I was thinking about writing
> > a wrapper for win32lib and one for some linux lib, making the
> > interface for both wrappers identical so I could simply plug in
> > the appropriate wrapper to have my programs running on both
> > platforms.
> >
> > <snip>
> > > PS I'd be grateful for any help on this and will give the code on
> > > demand.
> >
> > I don't think I can help you there. TCP stuff is not realy my
> > strong point.
>
> Did anyone note the latest security bugs in ALL windows OSs for RPC,
> which incidently isn't IPC, but RPC does use TCP.
>
> Kat
>
Just as a side note, the DisplayServer() doesnt use any RPC at
all.
Take care,
Al
10. RE: Standardisation between Win libraries
eugtk at yahoo.com wrote:
> An interesting idea, but one which would probably be
> unappealing to both Windows and Linux users, because
> each platform has some very good features which simply
> aren't available on the other. Anything written
> to run on both platforms would be limited to only
> those things they both have in common, and would
> thereby lack the niceties that users have become
> accustomed to.
I think for standard enterprise kinda applications the common
feature set is sufficient. I agree that for the more nifty
stuff you better get a bit more closer to the actual OS but in
those cases you are crossing into territory of choosing a certain
OS for a certain task.
I like the prospect of developing certain enterprise solutions
that are easy to port to linux when it makes it's move into
corporate desktop use (which is already happening tmo).
Hans Peter Willems
11. RE: Standardisation between Win libraries
jbrown105 at speedymail.org wrote:
<snip>
> > Anything written
> > to run on both platforms would be limited to only
> > those things they both have in common, and would
> > thereby lack the niceties that users have become
> > accustomed to.
>
> Unforutantly true. However the library(ies) itself need not suffer from
> this:
> it merely need unite what the platforms have in common into a standard
> interface (i.e. CreateWindow(), WriteWindow(), etc for Linux/BSD/Win32)
> and
> then add the per-platform nicies to the per-platform include file. The
> Linux
> nices wont work on win32 and vice versa, but at least the library would
> support
> both (and in theory might be able to eventually provide emulation on the
> other
> platforms).
Exactly how I see it
Hans Peter Willems
