On 19 okt 2003, at 15:25, Bob Ippolito wrote: > > On Sunday, Oct 19, 2003, at 08:57 America/New_York, Ronald Oussoren > wrote: > >> >> On 19 okt 2003, at 9:51, Bob Ippolito wrote: >> >>> http://undefined.org/python/SystemConfiguration-0.1.tar.gz >>> >>> This is a source distribution, it requires PyObjC and Developer >>> Tools. The wrapper itself is (entirely) an ObjC framework, but it >>> includes everything necessary for Python wrapping. I haven't done >>> any documentation, real tests, especially testing of the runloop >>> integration.. but here it is if someone wants to play with it. The >>> ObjC is a little sloppy (three classes in one file), and the >>> setup.py is a lot sloppy (thanks to distutils being not easily >>> extensible), but it works.. or at least it should. >> >> I haven't looked at your code yet, but wouldn't it be better to >> generate the wrapper using bgen? That would make the wrapper easier >> to maintain and easier to integrate into MacPython/the python core. >> >> The CodeGenerator scripts in PyObjC could also be coaxed into >> generating a functioning wrapper That is, without significant changes >> to the scripts. The prototypes are different enough to require >> changes to the "parser". > > I decided against bgen for a couple reasons: > - bgen is hard to use Yup, that's why PyObjC contains Scripts/CodeGenerator :-), writing those scripts was easier than getting bgen to work correctly. As I never managed to get a working bgen setup I cannot say if bgen is really hard to use or if it's just the lack of documentation that makes it so hard to use. > - I'm not yet convinced that the code generators save that much time > in the long run An important advantage of code generators is that you end up with a consistantly translated API. This may not be the perfect API, but makes it so much easier to use existing documentation and examples (all targetting the C API) when writing Python scripts that use the wrapped API. > - I wrote it by mostly by hand so I know that each and every method > has been "audited" by someone to at least look like it should work ;) > - Using a bgen-generated Python module doesn't feel much better than > coding in C. These are named so that the module feels like they're > using PyObjC. See me previous point, a more python-like interface is not necessarily an advantage. That won't keep me from using your wrappers though, the look pretty usefull as they are. > - SystemConfiguration is one of those > should've-already-been-wrapped-in-ObjC-by-Apple frameworks that uses a > lot of CoreFoundation types, so the bridge code is already in PyObjC > for the most part (lots of CFDictionaryRef, CFArray, CFString, etc.) I've been thinking about this. Should there be a 'PyCF' "project" for building good wrappers for CoreFoundation(-based) APIs? This could be done by changing the bgen scripts in MacPython, adapting the CodeGenerator scripts from PyObjC or writing something from scratch. > - It might be useful from ObjC someday. Surely by someone in the > ObjC community that isn't using any or a lot of Python yet. > - The SystemConfiguration framework has awkward rules about when you > need to check for errors, so I'd have to write a lot of helpers by > hand anyway. Since bgen helpers are in C, not ObjC, it would be much > more of a pain in the ass to write them (i.e. more like 20 lines of > code per hand-wrapped function instead of an average of maybe 4 here). Your ObjC wrappers seem to use a seperate function for raising the exception. A simular solution could be used in bgen-based wrappers (which could use ObjC to access the contents of CFArray/NSArray instances). Ronald
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4