Re: SELinux userspace infrastructure language

[James Antill <jantill@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1702 bytes --]

On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 20:45 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:54:23 -0400
> "Joshua Brindle" <jbrindle@tresys.com> wrote:
> 
> > Given all this I think C++ is the best bet, though I'm not adverse to
> > most of the frontends being written in python, it would just be nice
> > if the actual policy representation and accessors are available from a
> > shared library API that most languages can use.
> 
> From the library side, C++ has the advantage that it can produce
> bindings for any language that C can.

 Do you have a examples of this? From what little I know it's _much_
harder to produce usable bindings from C++, the Qt/KDE bindings seem to
have been in the works for years now and AIUI only very recently[1] got
into KDE's stable branch. With the first non-C++ application being
written in ... python.
 Even assuming everyone could cooperatively write good C++ code from
scratch using just the right C++ features, which is a huge
assumption[2], it then has to be debugged and then after all that work
all you'll gain is that you can then bind to python (and maybe,
Java/ruby) as well?
 Is anyone writing anything in a language other than C or Python?

>  Writing a library in python
> pretty much guarantees that noone will write anything using it in
> anything but python, and on smaller systems the python interpreter can
> get to be a lot of overhead.

 True, but you can still import C etc. into it if you really need the
space savings.

 Just my 2¢

[1] http://dot.kde.org/1176941846/

[2] A _Much_ bigger assumption than getting python correct, or C string
handling for that matter.

-- 
James Antill <jantill@redhat.com>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]