[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [DotGNU]Re: pnetlib architecture
From: |
Jerry Walter |
Subject: |
RE: [DotGNU]Re: pnetlib architecture |
Date: |
Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:02:16 -0500 |
Looks like 'fuzzy' logic to me.
HA !
It might just work !
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim TerlegÄrd [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 1:25 PM
To: Rhys Weatherley
Cc: address@hidden
Subject: [DotGNU]Re: pnetlib architecture
> Technically speaking, methods inside the VM are "internal
> call" methods, and methods outside the are VM "platform
> invoke" (or PInvoke) methods.
PInvoke methods, are they C# class methods or do they belong to pnet?
> There are tons of cases like this in the low-level libraries,
> and they are VM or OS specific. The high-level libraries
> can usually be written completely in C#, or can access
> native code through PInvoke, which isn't VM-specific.
Something like this?
High-level C# classes
| |
V V
low-level C# Pinvoke
| | |
V V V
PInvoke Pnet Pnet
| |
V V
OS OS
Have no idea what this figure will look like in other email clients,
probably
like chaos :)
> Assuming that they don't deliberately build some Mono
> VM dependency into their code, it should run on top of
> some future version of pnetlib just fine, even though the
> pnet VM has a different set of internal call methods.
Is PInvoke standardised? I mean, does Mono also use PInvoke methods? If not,
how could Mono run on top of pnetlib?
I'm thinking of contributing to pnetlib, but I'd like to be less confused
first :)
-- Tim
_______________________________________________
Developers mailing list
address@hidden
http://subscribe.dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- RE: [DotGNU]Re: pnetlib architecture,
Jerry Walter <=