Re: Is libbusybox stable for standalone application?

[Ross Cameron]

Those are all file system call operations,... which will be supported
by whichever C library you are using on you're devices.

From my reading of the matter libbusybox.so would be more suited to
writing additional utilities that need to directly at an API level
interact with Busybox and its applets.

On 13/09/2007, colin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Hi all,
 Our platform is with low cpu power and an application using system api too
 many times will draw down cpu performance.
 These statements are like system(/bin/mkdir ...), system(/bin/touch
 ...), ... and system(/bin/rm ...).
 I am thinking if the application is linked with libbusybox.so, we can call
 corresponding functions and then avoid fork process.
 Is this a good way? The help page says that libbusybox is under experiment
 and I am afraid it's not stable.

 Thanks and regards,
 Colin





 ___
 busybox mailing list
 busybox@busybox.net
 http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox

___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Re: Is libbusybox stable for standalone application?

[Denys Vlasenko]

On Thursday 13 September 2007 08:28, colin wrote:
 
 Hi all,
 Our platform is with low cpu power and an application using system api too
 many times will draw down cpu performance.
 These statements are like system(/bin/mkdir ...), system(/bin/touch
 ...), ... and system(/bin/rm ...).
 I am thinking if the application is linked with libbusybox.so, we can call
 corresponding functions and then avoid fork process.
 Is this a good way? The help page says that libbusybox is under experiment
 and I am afraid it's not stable.

Current problem is that after build system overhaul libbusybox
cannot be built ;)

Someone needs to sit down and figure out how to make it work again.

After that, you can certainly use it in a way you described.
--
vda
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox