I'd guesstimate that work as two weeks hard programming labour (for a single win32 proficient programmer - extend that by another week for each extra men on the job).
-- Oded Arbel m-Wise Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (972)-67-340014 (972)-9-9581711 (ext: 116) ::.. Famous Last words 143-"Here kitty, kitty, kitty..." > -----Original Message----- > From: Kalle Marjola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 3:57 PM > Cc: Kannel Developers > Subject: Re: Windows Kannel? > > > On Wed, 15 May 2002, Stipe Tolj wrote: > > > Kalle Marjola wrote: > > > > > > Yeah, I guess cygwin would be sufficient but some people > keep asking, can > > > it be done without cygwin there - and I guess cygwin > isn't the most > > > efficient one if we want to have high throughput > > > > Cygwin is of course not as fast as a native port would be, but > > comparing the burdons in porting this may be a good trade-off IMO. > > Naturally, but those people keep asking me so I'd love to have some > estimation/etc. to base that opinion on :] (like: a rought > guess is that > 3 man-months would be needed to do the porting, do you still > think it is > worth it?) (I personally know nothing about windows programming) > > > -- > &kalle marjola > > >
