| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Oobles Site Admin
Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 362 Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 12:21 pm Post subject: Any value in a APR or NSPR port? |
|
|
Just curious of what people think of porting either the Apache Portable Runtime library or Netscape Portable Runtime. Both of these projects seem to have a nice set of features.
The latest APR includes Atomic operations, Dynamic Shared Object Loading, File I/O, Locks, Memory management, Memory-maped files, multicast sockets, network i/o, shared memory, thread and process management, data structures(tables, hashes, priority queues,etc).
Apache Portable Runtime
http://apr.apache.org/
Netscape Portable Runtime
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/nspr/
Anyone had any experience with either of these? It could be that they won't add any value at this level?
David. aka Oobles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
groepaz

Joined: 01 Sep 2005 Posts: 305
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Oobles Site Admin
Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 362 Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It wasn't so much if current projects use them, but if future projects might find them useful. I've got no interest in porting Firefox or Apache, however, parts of those projects could be useful. I've got a few ideas for some networking based apps I'd like to do. Developing them in a portable way would be a plus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
holger
Joined: 18 Aug 2005 Posts: 204
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| what's the point of wrapping POSIX? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jsgf
Joined: 12 Jul 2005 Posts: 254
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Seems like overkill to me. If we can wrap the networking in a fairly standard sockety library and wrap threading in pthreads, then we're most of the way there.
mmap, shared memory, etc are clearly not applicable to this platform, so there's no benefit there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|