[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: cost of popen()
From: |
Shigio Yamaguchi |
Subject: |
Re: cost of popen() |
Date: |
Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:54:10 +0900 |
> > Does this mean stopping supporting plug-in parser?
>
> It shouldn't if the parser API is defined well. You could even support
> dynamic objects for plug-in parsers.
You mean function layer plug-in?
I agree. We should make it a library, if it is possible in reasonable cost.
But the priority is not so high, I think.
If the flexibility is important, should we take command layer plug-in
rather than function layer plug-in?
--
Shigio YAMAGUCHI <address@hidden> - Tama Communications Corporation
PGP fingerprint: D1CB 0B89 B346 4AB6 5663 C4B6 3CA5 BBB3 57BE DDA3
- Re: cost of popen(), (continued)
- Re: cost of popen(), Shigio Yamaguchi, 2005/06/16
- Re: cost of popen(), Shigio Yamaguchi, 2005/06/17
- Re: cost of popen(), Hideki IWAMOTO, 2005/06/17
- Re: cost of popen(), Shigio Yamaguchi, 2005/06/17
- Re: cost of popen(), Hideki IWAMOTO, 2005/06/17
- Re: cost of popen(), Shigio Yamaguchi, 2005/06/17
- Re: cost of popen(), Hideki IWAMOTO, 2005/06/19
- Re: cost of popen(), Hideki IWAMOTO, 2005/06/19
- Re: cost of popen(), Shigio Yamaguchi, 2005/06/19
RE: cost of popen(), Bakken, Luke, 2005/06/17
- Re: cost of popen(),
Shigio Yamaguchi <=