On Sat, 2007-03-10 at 15:39 +0100, Pedro Martínez Juliá wrote: > On vie, 2007-03-09 at 14:39 -0500, Miguel de Icaza wrote: > > Hello, > > > > What I would like to see is a separate assembly, say: > > > > Mono.Windows.Forms > > > > That would contain methods for portability like this. The entry > > points in this assembly would do something operating system specific. > > > > Miguel. > > Hi, > > What classes/methods would be in "Mono.Windows.Forms"? > > I think that "P/Invoke" calls can be provided with managed code, in > separated libraries and "Cecil" can be used to "port" the application.
I don't think we want to add an additional step for the user if there's some way we can handle it automatically in the runtime. Having a separate .exe for mono defeats portability. > The implementation of that libraries could be done "on-demand", taking a > look to MoMa reports. That's the plan - there's no need to implement all of the win32 unmanaged api. We'll prioritize things based on who uses what, and how often. Chris _______________________________________________ Mono-winforms-list maillist - [email protected] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-winforms-list
