Subject: Re: libole2 (was Re: commit -- POW - Beginning the Binary ...)
From: Dom Lachowicz (dominicl@seas.upenn.edu)
Date: Thu Mar 30 2000 - 18:12:59 CST
James Montgomerie wrote:
> I'm not totally against uding glib, and if we go down that road I won't
> complain afterwards. It just seems to me to not be 'reinventing' the
> wheel, but bloating the source tree by adding more wheels when we've
> got some perfectly good working (cross-platform) ones already [and that
> applies especially to platforms without a glib port already - is
> morphing libole2 to WV and Abi more work than cross-platforming glib?].
I'd say that they'd be about the same actually. I'm not totally concerned
about forking libole2 if we choose to port libole2 to use Abiword's
utility package. The source of libole2 is *small* (like 2 .h files and 2
.c files for about 4500 total lines counting whitespace and brackets).
Updates to the source are infrequent - only 1 in the past 2 months and
then about 2-3 updates each month before that. Here's the TODO file, and
that's pretty small too. So we wouldn't really be forking too much or
causing people integration headaches if we choose to go the "Abi route."
Dom
Optimise non mmaped block storage to allow contiguous ptr passing.
Ref count ms_ole_stream & ms_ole
libvfs integration (?)
write nice simple file handle style macros / wrappers.
Is Makefile.am (INCLUDES) really really needed?
Sort out small streams < 0x1000 bytes; something is duff in the
PPS / chaining ( lots of work with hex editor ).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Mar 30 2000 - 18:13:06 CST