Tom Eastep wrote:
> Natanael Copa wrote:
>
>> Have you thought of lua? should give you better performance than perl
>> and would still be small enough for embedded. I can't say I have been
>> looking at the shorewall code, but lua is very table oriented, which
>> might be good for your table based
Simon Matter wrote:
> My question is whether it's possible to use perl for some kind of
> Shorewall-accelerator. I mean if it would be possible to create a simple
> shell to perl converter which then runs perl instead of the shell and does
> exactly the same, then it could be used whenever perl is
Mike Noyes wrote:
>
>
> I'd worry when distributions start dropping Shorewall. That's an
> indication of decline.
>
Good point.
-Tom
--
Tom Eastep\ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool
Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net
Washington USA \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Public Key
Natanael Copa wrote:
>
> Have you thought of lua? should give you better performance than perl
> and would still be small enough for embedded. I can't say I have been
> looking at the shorewall code, but lua is very table oriented, which
> might be good for your table based config files.
I suspe
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 16:02, Tom Eastep wrote:
> Activity on the mailing lists and IRC channel has been steadily declining
> for the last couple of years. This signals to me that the rate at which
> people are adopting Shorewall is waning (I grant that the documentation has
> gotten better over th
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:02:06 -0800
Tom Eastep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have begun some experimentation with rewriting the compiler in Perl and
> that is looking promising. Converting to Perl will unfortunately present
> migration/compatibility issues with compile-time extension scripts altho
On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 11:21, Tom Eastep wrote:
> I have thought about rewriting in C or C++ but writing C/C++ code is
> what I've done for a living for years. I look at Shorewall as an
> opportunity to do something other than what I do in my professional life.
Tom,
Since, in my opinion, FOSS devel
Mike Noyes wrote:
> Have you considered using glibc? This would address your speed issues,
> and possibly allow embedded systems to compile with uclibc.
>
>
>> I welcome your input and look forward to further discussion.
>
> I hope my input is useful in some way.
>
I have thought about rewrit
