Home-made bingings or Florist?

Home-made bingings or Florist?

[Victor Porton]

What would you recommend for a program which needs to bind some small subset 
of Posix functions: Florist or my own bindings of a few functions using 
Import aspect or pragma?

The bound functions are currently intended ONLY for spawning subprocesses 
with given stdin and receiving the subprocess stdout. I hope otherwise stay 
in standard Ada for this project, without using more Posix bindings, but the 
real requests may vary in the future.

I use Ada2012.

-- 
Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org

Re: Home-made bingings or Florist?

[Luke A. Guest]

Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> wrote:
> What would you recommend for a program which needs to bind some small subset 
> of Posix functions: Florist or my own bindings of a few functions using 
> Import aspect or pragma?

I would bind myself. But then a GPLv3 library is an issue.

Re: Home-made bingings or Florist?

[Victor Porton]

Luke A.  Guest wrote:
> Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> wrote:
>> What would you recommend for a program which needs to bind some small
>> subset of Posix functions: Florist or my own bindings of a few functions
>> using Import aspect or pragma?
> 
> I would bind myself. But then a GPLv3 library is an issue.

Do you mean "But else" rather than "But then"? It could be an issue if using 
Florist rather than if not using it.

My software is GPL. It is not an issue for me at all.

-- 
Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org

Re: Home-made bingings or Florist?

[Luke A. Guest]

Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> wrote:
> Luke A.  Guest wrote:

>> I would bind myself. But then a GPLv3 library is an issue.
> 
> Do you mean "But else" rather than "But then"? It could be an issue if using 
> Florist rather than if not using it.

No I mean “but then” because a golv3 lib is an issue.

> 
> My software is GPL. It is not an issue for me at all.
> 

Fair enough. So use florist, it’s a non issue.

Re: Home-made bingings or Florist?

[Victor Porton]

Luke A.  Guest wrote:

> Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> wrote:
>> Luke A.  Guest wrote:
> 
>>> I would bind myself. But then a GPLv3 library is an issue.
>> 
>> Do you mean "But else" rather than "But then"? It could be an issue if
>> using Florist rather than if not using it.
> 
> No I mean “but then” because a golv3 lib is an issue.

What is golv3? There is no such library on Debian Linux.

>> 
>> My software is GPL. It is not an issue for me at all.
>> 
> 
> Fair enough. So use florist, it’s a non issue.
-- 
Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org

Re: Home-made bingings or Florist?

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 18:25:08 +0200
Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> wrote:
> Luke A.  Guest wrote:
> 
> > Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> wrote:
> >> Luke A.  Guest wrote:
> > 
> >>> I would bind myself. But then a GPLv3 library is an issue.
> >> 
> >> Do you mean "But else" rather than "But then"? It could be an issue if
> >> using Florist rather than if not using it.
> > 
> > No I mean “but then” because a golv3 lib is an issue.
> 
> What is golv3? There is no such library on Debian Linux.

I think "o" was meant to be a "p" and the overall meaning is any library
licensed under GPL version 3.

Re: Home-made bingings or Florist?

[Victor Porton]

Victor Porton wrote:

> What would you recommend for a program which needs to bind some small
> subset of Posix functions: Florist or my own bindings of a few functions
> using Import aspect or pragma?
> 
> The bound functions are currently intended ONLY for spawning subprocesses
> with given stdin and receiving the subprocess stdout. I hope otherwise
> stay in standard Ada for this project, without using more Posix bindings,
> but the real requests may vary in the future.
> 
> I use Ada2012.

I think I should bind myself. My program would then be more likely to work 
on a system with partial POSIX support (e.g. Windows), because I bind only 
these POSIX functions which are necessary for my program.

-- 
Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org

Re: Home-made bingings or Florist?

[Maciej Sobczak]

> I think I should bind myself. My program would then be more likely to work 
> on a system with partial POSIX support (e.g. Windows), because I bind only 
> these POSIX functions which are necessary for my program.

Not only that - with your own small bindings to just the functions that you need, you might find it easier to re-bind to native Windows API if the needed functionality can be reasonably mapped. With Florist you would need to stack the bindings one on top of another, which unnecessarily complicates things.
With this in mind, try to anticipate this need for portability early on and make sure that you do not commit to the interface that would make such transition unnecessarily difficult.

-- 
Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com