nanogui: A few process-related questions about uWin vs. nano-X
Subject:
Re: A few process-related questions about uWin vs. nano-X
From:
####@####.####
Date:
14 Apr 2000 07:34:13 -0000
Message-Id: <20000414072430.2279.qmail@www.nameplanet.com>
On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 16:45:02 -0600 "Greg Haerr" ####@####.#### wrote:
>: 1) Has any thought been given on uWin side of things to things like a
>shared
>: library, application loaders, etc? At the moment it seems like there can
>: only be one application actually running, though that application can open
>: as many windows as it would like. Is this a pretty fair summary of the
>: situation?
>
>I had some initial plans to add application loading capability to
>Microwindows,
>which would be alot easier than adding the client/server RPC marshalling to
>every API entry point. I think we need to address and solve this problem
>fairly soon.
I suggest you look at Cross Elf. It's a library that allow you to handle
portable application loading via ELF shared objects under any OS that
supports libdl (dlopen(), dlsym() etc.), Windows, and DOS (so it shouldn't
depend on too much OS support....). Under Windows it also allows the app.
to link to Windows DLLs. I've used it earlier to successfully write a network
server that ran from the same binary under both Windows and Linux with only
a very small (less than 1KB) shared object with a minimal compatibility layer
to make Winsock look like berkeley sockets.
Of course Cross Elf alone doen't guarantee you binary portability, but it
makes it possible... And since it also has a DOS loader it should be a fairly
managable task to port it to other platforms with little OS support available.
Regards,
Vidar Hokstad
--
Get your firstname@lastname email for FREE at http://NamePlanet.com
