From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: [PATCH] libxen-3.0 (libxc rewrite) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:55:59 -0600 Message-ID: <4240400F.3040805@us.ibm.com> References: <424033A5.4020802@us.ibm.com> <1111504492.20157.26.camel@bree.local.net> <42403733.8070903@us.ibm.com> <1111505492.20157.34.camel@bree.local.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <1111505492.20157.34.camel@bree.local.net> Sender: xen-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: xen-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Jeremy Katz Cc: xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org 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