Re: [PATCH] libxen-3.0 (libxc rewrite)

[Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>]

Jeremy Katz wrote:

>On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 09:18 -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>  
>
>>Do you have a suggestion for an alternative?  I know there are a number 
>>of binding-generators but I thought Pyrex was the most widely used.
>>    
>>
>
>Pyrex is probably the most generally used -- the stuff pygtk uses is
>nice, but not very general.
>
>In most cases, though, bindings done by hand end up being higher quality
>than something that's just being generated.
>  
>
I was afraid that that would be your answer.

I would really like to automatically generate the bindings.  There is 
more C code in the current libxc/libxu python bindings than all of vm-tools.

gcc4 is still a bit off and I imagine that Pyrex will be updated as 
needed.  If it ever proves to be painful to deal with, I'll break down 
and add bindings by hand.  Does that seem like a reasonable plan moving 
forward?

Regards,
Anthony Liguori

>Jeremy
>
>
>  
>



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: 2005 Windows Mobile Application Contest
Submit applications for Windows Mobile(tm)-based Pocket PCs or Smartphones
for the chance to win $25,000 and application distribution. Enter today at
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6882&alloc_id=15148&op=click