Hi Stan,
----- Original Message -----
> [...]
> > whether we should / shouldn't attempt a switch (essentially replacing the
>
> I think this would be a definite improvement. The line oriented tools are
> easier to mimic; but duplicating all the user presentation stuff is a
> headache. I had peeked at this once and it seemed like photoproc was
> modularized and a dyninst clone would not be too bad. photosyst didn't seem
[ apologies for inducing a context switch :) - I think you mean PCP API clone
rather than dyninst clone here? ]
> to be quite as modularized and I didn't look at acctphotoproc too much but
> it seemed like we could provide photoproc_dyn, photosyst_dyn, and
> acctphotoproc_dyn and things would work. Does it look that way to you. It
> would be a big improvement.
>
Something like that, yes - I started hacking on it & there are places where
the existing modularisation works quite nicely for us; other places less so,
but nothing terrible so far. I'll send a prototype around once I have some
basic functionality going.
Its interesting looking at the code - there's things that are well suited to
the abstractions PCP gives that seem to have been sought after for some time
(e.g there's #if HTTPSTATS sprinkled throughout).
cheers.
--
Nathan
|