Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > [1 <text/plain; us-ascii (7bit)>] > On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 05:24:08AM -0700, Aaron Van Couwenberghe wrote: >... > 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. > > 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.
I think its a bad idea to say "You want to access to dpkg, programm in XXX". All interaction should be via a call to dpkg itself. Also modules should be programs by itself and not linked. dpkg would then call "dpkg-download-ftp" to download a package via ftp, or it could call "dpkg-download-apt" to use apt and so on. That way all modules can be written in any language. They only must share a common interface via commandline options, which all programs can provide easily. > > 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. May the Source be with you. Goswin