> > These overwhelming responses tell me that: either my design total **** > > or it is boring or nobody is here or maybe you are not interested. :) > > Sorry Waldemar (and all team as a whole), I'm having some > girlfriend pregnancy issue, and not really focusing on OpenBeOS right now... > Hopefully, this will come to an end, called Thomas, soon :-) Congratulations and good luck! ;) > I gave a look at the headers, looks like a good start, but I'm worrying > about how you will interface these classes with the current stack modules API, > which are very lowest level. > Beware too that, according to Axel Dorfler, inheritage in kernel land may or > may not works, depends on... Axel mood ;-) I think the only problem is multiple inheritage. > > This is only a small draft and it will change a little bit. I am not > > very sure about the K prefix. > > Drop it, please. PPPInterface class name make far better sense. Okay. I will add the K prefix to the headers, though. Otherwise we would have a naming problem. > > Should I use the OpenTracker style? It looks so ugly. :) > > Well according to OpenBeos develop chart, yes. > However, nobody will throw away your work only because it doesn't follow this > stylme guideline. It is already changed. I can live with OpenTracker. > > (look at Application.h). > > Should I continue? > > Obviously ! > Don't drop you work just because the current team leader seem to be wapor. > Do backup of your code often, and share it. > Do you have an idea already on how you can interface with current stack code? > I may find old ppp/dialup code, lost in the move under /current tree, maybe > it can help you to see how to merge your work with the current stack. The ppp_module will route all communications to the PPPInterface. The old ppp code could be very useful. If you find it send it to me, please. > And, please, don't focus too much on PPP serving support. R1 target is to offer > dialup client support in priority... I just wanted to be prepared for the future. Otherwise we would have to rewrite everything later. Why should we do the work twice if we can do it once? > Keep doing good work. I am doing my (nearly ;) best. Waldemar