Re: Component Manager

[hohmuth@inf.tu-dresden.de (Michael Hohmuth)]

Tolian Soran wrote:

[ Details on component manager deleted ]

> [...]  I was wondering if and of the poeple attmepting to create a
> shared library system knew which trap number they are likely to use,
> so that my system won't clash (I am presently using trap #0).

Do you really need to use up a trap?  If your system is MiNT-specific
anyway, you should rather implement it as a loadable device driver, or
even as a file system so that your libraries (or ``components'') can
be looked up through the file system and accessed/manipulated via
Fcntl() (there could be an Fcntl() opcode that returns a pointer to
the jumptable, for instance).

(If you don't like that, then how about using a cookie which points to
your manager's entry point?  Still better than using a trap.)

BTW, I didn't quite understand what distinguishes your component
manager from what is more commonly called shared library management,
and what are its advantages compared with the other shared library
schemes which have been proposed before...  (Then again, your article
was quite long and I perhaps just didn't grok it when I skimmed
through it. ;)

Michael
-- 
Email: hohmuth@inf.tu-dresden.de
WWW:   http://www.inf.tu-dresden.de/~mh1/