From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Marc - A. Dahlhaus" Subject: Re: [PATCH] add xl ocaml bindings Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:42:41 +0200 Message-ID: <1277732561.27909.15.camel@marc> References: <1277707643-788-1-git-send-email-vincent.hanquez@eu.citrix.com> <1277719149.25867.311.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1277719149.25867.311.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ian Campbell Cc: Xen Devel , Vincent Hanquez List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Hello Ian, Am Montag, den 28.06.2010, 10:59 +0100 schrieb Ian Campbell: > Not really a comment on this patch as such but more a related thought... > How many language bindings do we think there are going to be and how > much effort do we expect it would be keeping them all (or even just the > interesting subset) up to date? > > Is it worth investing the time up front to define a (simple) IDL and to > generate the C header and language bindings from that? > > Are there any existing IDLs which would meet our needs? > > Another thought is that an IDL would partially isolate people changing > the libxl interface from needing to know enough about each language to > fixup the bindings (or else they may break the build). At least in the > normal case where the change does not require a change to the IDL then a > simple regeneration should be enough to update the bindings for the > change. > > On the other hand sometimes maintaining the auto code generator can be > more work than just maintaining bindings by hand... > > Ian. maybe http://www.swig.org/ might help in this case. It supports ocaml, python and also many more targets (like perl which i would love to get :) )... According to http://www.swig.org/tutorial.html it looks like it could save the effort of maintaining the bindings one by one in parallel... Marc