On Tue, Apr 18, 2000 at 02:33:30PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 18 Apr, Scott Haug wrote:
> > And, like I stated earlier, I don't know understand why we shouldn't.
> > 
> > -Scott
> > 
> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2000 at 03:17:36PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> I still say we should use the C++ interface... all our other plugins do...
> Simple, the C++ interface is currently not accessible under Windows --
> only the C Interface is being exposed.

Well, if Elrod's suggestion isn't viable (and I'm not sure you've addressed why
it isn't) and exposing the C++ interface isn't an option, than let's expose the
C interface for linux.  As I said, it's on my list of things to do anyway.

> Would you like me to change the code so that the C interface is being
> exposed by the linux version as well? That will be the most portable
> solution for the long term...

My only concern is that I want id3lib's C interface to be a /good/ interface,
not just a hack that made it easier to access the library.  I'm not claiming
it's a hack, I just haven't looked at it yet.  Let me take a look at the DLL
interface tonight and make sure I don't want to make any changes to it.  Is
there anything you would recommend that would make the current C interface
easier/more intuitive to use?

If you want to udpate linux code, feel free.  I'll be more inclined to go with
your solution if you've given me working code.  However, I do consider id3lib
to currently be an unstable release, so if I think the C interface needs work,
I'm not opposed to changing it.  But not after discussing it with you.  :)

Thanks for help and patience with this.


> --ruaok         Freezerburn! All else is only icing. -- Soul Coughing
> Robert Kaye -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://moon.eorbit.net/~robert

Reply via email to