On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:27:14 am Stephan Beal wrote:
> On Feb 26, 8:53 pm, Joe Antoon <[email protected]> wrote:
> > binds function instances to
> > it.http://www.betterwebber.com/stuff/v8/importex.cchttp://www.betterwebbe
> >r.com/stuff/v8/pluginex.cc
>
> Great! It looks like you've done all the work already! :)
>
> > That's pretty simplistic, but it's worked so far for what I've been
> > doing (shell with MPI bindings). What OO approach do you have in
> > mind?
>
> i don't have a strong preference, actually. In my existing
> (SpiderMonkey-based) code i use dll_load(). Maybe something like:
>
> system.plugins.open("foo");
> system.plugins.classpath.set( dir1, dir2, ... );
> system.plugins.classpath.set( [dir1,dir2,...,dirN] );
> var myArray = system.plugins.classpath.asArray();
>
> etc. But the public API doesn't need more than 3 functions in my
> experience (set/get classpath and open dll), so global-scope functions
> are arguably just as appropriate.
>
> i'm headed off to bed, but i'll take a close look at your plugins code
> over the weekend :). Thanks for sharing!
>
My software experiment that is available at
http://www.anthony-shipman.id.au/software/index.html
includes a plug-in system e.g.
jfx.Plugin.addPath("/tmp");
jfx.Plugin.load("jqt");
jfx.Plugin.unload("jqt");
or set JFX_PLUGIN_PATH or it just uses a default plugins directory.
--
Anthony Shipman Mamas don't let your babies
[email protected] grow up to be outsourced.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
v8-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-users
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
