Hi Anthony, On 20 May, Anthony Towns wrote: > One alternative that's probably worth considering is improving libdpkg, so > that Apt and friends can make use of dpkg that way, and provide their own > front ends however they see fit.
I don't think that is a "complete" solution. Improving libdpkg would be good but, as Aaron described, that would just be adding/modifying code to code that is already "brittle." > In particular, there are established ways of linking programs written in > any language against C based libraries. As far as I'm aware doing the same > to C++ (or other object-oriented languages) is a pain in the neck. C++ libraries aren't bad once you get to know them. If you are concerned about linking other languages to a C++ library then you can always provide C wrappers around C++ library functions. This isn't an optimal solution. > And I don't particularly think it's much of a gain to say "You want > access to dpkg's internals? Just use C++!". C++ is all well and good, > but it's not *that* good. Hrm. I would have to disagree with you. Using object oriented techniques certainly makes things easier to maintain, extend and debug. Using object oriented "design patterns" (see any good book on OO design patterns), for example, makes code much easier to understand and/or implement. > > Whether or not the community approves of this, > > I will pursue it, and let the chips fall where they may. > > Good luck, FWIW. I've no doubt you'll need it. Indeed. It is an ambitious endeavor but a worthy one nevertheless, IMHO. Aaron, you've got my support. :) -Ossama -- Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Center for Distributed Object Computing, Washington University, St. Louis 58 60 1A E8 7A 66 F4 44 74 9F 3C D4 EF BF 35 88 1024/8A04D15D 1998/08/26
