On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 10:05:03PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote: > I didn't mean to create a debate on the merits of different UIs. I am > certainly not advocating abandoning, or even replacing the existing GUI. I > strongly agree with the merits of cross platform functionality. Understood. I was trying to justify the reason why supporting the native Windows UI is a good idea. > Let me try and return to my original question about making a library version > of Ethereal. I had originally thought that the best approach would be to > create a set of stub functions which translated all internal data structures > and APIs into a set of external functions and APIs. This would save any > program linking with the library from needing to include the large number of > include files used in the Ethereal code. With some experimentation however I > found that I can compile all of the Ethereal headers with Borland C++ > Builder directly, so my concern is not really valid (Although needing to > include such a large number of files is still pretty ugly). I also thought > some more about the amount of work required in mapping from the internal > data-structures to the external ones and realized how huge an undertaking it > is. I think the better approach would be to separate the working code from the UI as much as possible and create a thin abstraction layer over the UI. As Guy suggested, we should seriously have a look at how they do this in the AbiWord project. Of course, if you need Ethereal in a DLL for creating another application, this won't help you. Mike.
Powered by MHonArc 2.6.10