Re: [Libvir] Remote patch, 2007-02-28
Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 11:25:32AM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> I'm not sure what you mean by 'expose the remote interface directly'
?
>> Do you mean allow arbitrary non-libvirt clients to speak to the server
>> daemon directly, or something else ?
> I've been wondering this morning what reasons clients would have for
> wanting to reverse-engineer/reimplement the wire protocol. If they're
> using an obscure language without libvirt support? (Answer: write some
> libvirt bindings, stupid!) If they're using an obscure language which
> lacks a C FFI? If they have license problems with libvirt?
Keeping C library based binding for a Java application is really
annoying, and JNI is like designed to make this hard.
Yes JNI sucks. Does anyone know what SWIG support for Java is like?
(It's pretty terrible for OCaml, the only language where I've used it,
but it is supposed to be better for more mainstream langs).
Rich.
--
Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/
64 Baker Street, London, W1U 7DF Mobile: +44 7866 314 421
"[Negative numbers] darken the very whole doctrines of the equations
and make dark of the things which are in their nature excessively
obvious and simple" (Francis Maseres FRS, mathematician, 1759)
Attachments:
- smime.p7s (application/x-pkcs7-signature — 3.2 KB)