-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, Reed Hedges wrote:
Peter Amstutz wrote:
Yea, it sounds like Lalo has something different in mind, so perhaps the
way to go is to go ahead with two different Python bindings and
eventually have a bake-off to decide which is
And so says Reed Hedges on 12/02/06 04:12...
One thing, I wonder what the need for the ProxyListener is? If you
want to use a message handler instead of a listener, you just have to
handle the update messages. On the other hand, having API
specifically for implementing listeners is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter Amstutz wrote:
Yea, it sounds like Lalo has something different in mind, so perhaps the
way to go is to go ahead with two different Python bindings and
eventually have a bake-off to decide which is better :-)\
Lalo, ideally your API would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter Amstutz wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Lalo Martins wrote:
Or in other words - why would I use the existing swig stuff? :-)
I think that you will find that in the long run that SWIG is much more
maintainable that keeping up a set of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Lalo Martins wrote:
The SWIG bindigns are a wrapper for the whole API. AFAICS, there is no
way to take an existing Vobject from C++, turn it into a Python object,
and send it as an argument to a Python function. SWIG simply
And so says Peter Amstutz on 09/02/06 05:31...
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Lalo Martins wrote:
The SWIG bindigns are a wrapper for the whole API. AFAICS, there is no
way to take an existing Vobject from C++, turn it into a Python object,
and send it as an argument to a Python function. SWIG simply
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Lalo Martins wrote:
Yes... the main point of this thing is running python code, so I'd be
using libpython anyway. So I figured, the work of binding by hand would
probably be less than figuring out how to integrate the swig
And so says Peter Amstutz on 06/02/06 14:22...
With regards to adding a new method on VobjectBase to add
MessageDispatch objects directly -- yes, that might be a reasonable
solution to the problem you pose. Another solution, one that wouldn't
involve changing the API, would be for your code
