[sword-devel] PocketPC Development -- _WIN32_WCE #ifdef(s) and other questions

[Herb Ledebohm]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Troy A. Griffitts" <scribe@crosswire.org>
To: <sword-devel@crosswire.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: [sword-devel] PocketPC Development -- _WIN32_WCE #ifdef(s) and
other questions


> Herb,
> After we finally get 1.5.6 out the door, I'll begin moving
> read/write/lseek calls as inline method calls to FileMgr.  They'll just
> call ::read/::write/::lseek in the default impl.  This should isolate
> all fileio into FileMgr, as far as I can remember.

Excellent!  I'll keep you posted if/when I come across anything else.

>
> untgz is optional code.  you shouldn't need it unless you're planning to
> get the remote installation features working.  There should be
> approprate ifdef's already in the code so you can define them in your
> evc++ project files so it's left out (I think it's CURLAVAILABLE so
> having it undefined should leave it out by default; which means you
> might be ok just removing it from the project).  I don't think there are
> any other calls in the engine that you would refer to as System
(time,etc).

Great!  This moves me along quite nicely.  Are there any others like this?
I'll put stuff like this on the back-burner until core functionality is
ready.

>
> The thread issue has been mostly ignored in the engine.  We haven't
> defined any type of critical section mechanism, but might in the future.
>   I'll be sure to keep it abstract so we can redefine it per os, since
> it will be very different between linux/windows, as it stands.  There
> are things that lend themselves to letting a client of the engine use it
> in multiple threads-- e.g. you can interrupt a search by changing a
> method variable on a module; mod->terminateSearch = true;  but I'm sure
> there are plenty of things that wouldn't work well if multiple threads
> hit at the same time.

Actually, background search capability has always been one of the things
I would most like to see in bible (or any document) SW.

>
> I'm really excited about your work!  Please feel free to ask questions
> and comment to your hearts desire :)

Ok, just remember you posted this line...  Right around my 1000th
question... ;)

>
> -Troy.
>
>
>
>
> Herb Ledebohm wrote:
> > That's what I thought and I agree.  Since the #ifdef(s) would primarily
be
> > for system services (file/directory, time, etc.), these things should be
> > broken out into OS specific abstraction layers (like the FileMgr class
you
> > mention).  I'm actually pleasantly surprised at how much of the code
> > compiles just fine.
> >
> > A good example of where some work is needed is in untgz.c which includes
> > files like time.h, fcntl.h, io.h and errno.h to name a few.  None of
these
> > exist for WCE.  Although the functionality required can be provided,
there
> > will have to be changes made to get it working.  Unless you guys are
really
> > pressed to get this done asap, I'd like to take the time to get familiar
> > with all the code and make the changes myself.  I just wanted to get a
feel
> > for the preference on this.  I know at my place of employment, there are
> > very strong opinions on these issues ;)
> >
> > Some of the items that might be best in an osal:
> > File/Directory (yes, including read/write/seek)
> > System (time, etc)
> > Memory Mgmt (maybe? -- haven't gotten this far yet)
> > Process/Thread Mgmt (again, maybe?  -- haven't gotten this far yet)
> >
> > Forgive me please, if I'm mentioning things already considered/done.
I'm
> > still finding my way around.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Troy A. Griffitts" <scribe@crosswire.org>
> > To: <sword-devel@crosswire.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 3:09 AM
> > Subject: Re: [sword-devel] PocketPC Development -- _WIN32_WCE #ifdef(s)
and
> > other questions
> >
> >
> >
> >>Herb,
> >>If the wince compiler is still so non-standard as to not support our
> >>ANSI/ISO compliant C++ code, then microsoft, like always, still sucks :)
> >>
> >>I'd prefer you NOT clutter the code will a million ifdef's.  Can you
> >>give me an example?  We already added a bunch of stuff to get it to
> >>compile once on the wince compiler.  I took much of it out because there
> >>are better ways to handle some of the things that were ifdef'd.  Please
> >>give me an example and maybe I can add something for you that will help.
> >>
> >>Most of the file io routines should be isolated in the FileMgr class,
> >>so writing your own FileMgr replacement should do the trick.  We can
> >>consider moving the read/write/lseek calls to FileMgr methods if this
> >>will help you.
> >>
> >>I'm sorry if I don't sound too friendly toward microsoft.  We've
> >>already cluttered our code with a number of workarounds for their
> >>non-conformant compiler and it just makes me angry.  Nothing personal.
> >>
> >>-Troy.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Herb Ledebohm wrote:
> >>
> >>>What is the stance on me adding a number of these to the source?
> >>>#ifdef _WIN32_WCE ...or... #ifndef _WIN32_WCE
> >>>
> >>>If you guys prefer that we don't litter up the code with a bunch of
> >>>definition checks like these then I'll need to break out some of the
> >
> > code
> >
> >>>(which I'll have to do for directory/file services, system time, etc.
> >>>anyway) and handle it in the project file.
> >>>
> >>>Comments?  Preferences?
> >>>
> >>>Also, I'm leaning towards supporting only PocketPC2002+ since that is
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>toolset I have.
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>sword-devel mailing list
> >>>sword-devel@crosswire.org
> >>>http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>sword-devel mailing list
> >>sword-devel@crosswire.org
> >>http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > sword-devel mailing list
> > sword-devel@crosswire.org
> > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> sword-devel mailing list
> sword-devel@crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel