On Dec 2, 2010, at 4:38 PM, Bernd Kallies wrote: >> 1.1 is pretty close to done. If you wanted to shift your work to be based >> on 1.1, I think you'd be pretty safe. > > I'll try. Currently my wrapper implements only basic things, so there > should be no problem (because it is a wrapper, only). Problems would > arise when one wants to extend the number of implemented methods.
Cool. > To be > honest, I expected some remarks about the completeness of the wrapper. My personal bias is always reading from the objects; I rarely use many of the accessors (simply because hardware may not be uniform). That's why I thought your first set of accessors was sufficient. My $0.02: those are ok. Go with that for a first version. Then get some real-world users and see what they ask for. >> Would you -- or your employer, if they own the code that you generate -- be >> able to sign this document? > > The answer is yes. Great! FWIW, Samuel made a good point to me off-list earlier today: keeping language bindings as a separate package is worthwhile because then they can use their own language-native build/install/packaging tools rather than have to deal with the GNU autotools. That's a relatively good argument to put stuff on CPAN (and/or push them via RPMs to the distros). At a bare minimum, I believe that if you host perl bindings on CPAN (and Red Hat Guy hosts python bindings elsewhere), we can definitely link to that site from our web site, README, ...etc. -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
