Sat 2003-02-15 07:37, Pavel Andreew (2:5080/59) wrote to andrew clarke:

 ac>> Have any of the SMAPI developers looked at XMSGAPI and considered
 ac>> using it instead of SMAPI?

 >    None. The base library of Husky project is SMAPI, and *all* modules 
 > depends from it. So if we'll change low level API, other parts we'll be 
 > very unstable.

It's based on SMAPI 2.3.  Some of the headers files have been rearranged,
but the code is basically the same.  See the ChangeLog.

 ac>> Also, can the Husky developers please stop using #include
 acsmapi/header.hheader.h>
and cc -I ,
 acpath> is where header.h is located.

 >    None. Standart include dir is /usr/include, therefore no reason of 
 > use "-I" switch at unix makefiles.

Which is contrary to your next sentence...

 ac>> Otherwise you MUST have a directory named smapi, which can especially
 ac>> be a problem on non-UNIX machines, particularly because you can't use
 ac>> a symlink to the real SMAPI

 >    No problem! Using "-I../.." at non-unix makefiles
resolve this. All 
 > compiled software must be placed under one HUSKY/ tree.

1. I don't want to place everything under the one tree.

2. I don't want it forced on me that the directory where SMAPI is located
is named "smapi".

 ac>>  (which might be XMSGAPI).

 >    Bad idea. From now SMAPI has LGPL licence (see Tobe letter) and 
 > we'll be develop only this *standart* interface.

The next version of XMSGAPI 1.7 will be licenced under the LGPL thanks to Tobias.

Alternatively, you might want to look at the many changes I made to SMAPI
(to produce XMSGAPI) to make it more portable, and integrate those changes
into SMAPI.

-- mail{at}ozzmosis.com

--- Msged/BSD 6.1.1