[shell-coding] Re: howto talk to lsapi.dll (or any other dll)?

In a message dated 7/25/2002 5:37:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
kschaffe@xxxxxxxx writes:

> 
>  >
>  >It may not be new, but it was internal before, at least in another form, 
by 
> 
>  >exposing it in that api though, you are locking LiteStep into that 
format; 
> it 
>  >will either have to be maintained or depreciated. The insane hacks that 
> keep 
>  >getting added to LiteStep are only hindering it.
>  >
>  
>  What in the world are you talking about?!

The variable handling, the math/statement evaluation, if you want a system 
that does all that it should be redesigned from the ground up to do it 
properly.

>  
>  
>  >Perhaps what is needed is 
>  >better design, something a little more thought out. I can speak from 
>  >experience when working on Phoenix that all these neat little hacks and 
>  >additions are a pain in the ass to support later if you want to do 
anything 
> 
>  >besides what is already being done.
>  >
>  
>  Phoenix was the worst hack of LS I've ever seen. I'm thrilled
>  to see it dead.
>  
As I stated, those hacks were to replicate the functionality found in 
previous versions of LiteStep to maintain compatiability

>  
>  >If this mailing list is to discuss shell 
>  >features and coding, perhaps a better solution would be to hash out an 
>  >alternative system instead of just releasing a new api that might not be 
>  >supported by every LiteStep build. 
>  >
>  >Just my two cents, I think any major additions to the api should be 
> ratified 
>  >by the majority of code and module developers; perhaps there is a better 
> way, 
>  >or the functionality isnt needed at all.
>  >  
>  >
>  
>  A bureaucracy! That'll fix everything!
Probably not, but it might have kept that god awful logging code out of the 
newer builds.

Message

__________________________________________________
Subscription options and archive:
http://www.freelists.org/list/shell-coding

Other related posts: