Re: [Pyode-user] Status of the wrappers?

[Bernie R. <br...@ec...>]

At 11:05 AM 6/21/2004 -0700, brett hartshorn wrote:
>Wrapping a
>wrapper is not ideal, but from the perspective where several python 
>wrappers must be created and
>maintained, it makes sense that they all use the same wrapping language.

Perhaps, though I think it depends on the circumstances.

For example, in the project I'm working on, I'm wrapping a C++ graphics 
library using SWIG and
wrapping ODE using Pyrex.  My reasoning is that the C++ graphics API is one 
project, the
ODE wrapper is another, and my main project simply imports modules from the 
other two.

In fact, I initially just used Mattias' PyODE without even knowing that it 
was written
using Pyrex -- it was just a .pyd that I imported.  The fact that I am now 
modifying some of the
code in that wrapper doesn't really change anything --  the main project 
doesn't care where the .pyd
files came from or what tools were used to create them.

That means we can use the right tool for the job in each case.  Since ODE 
is written in C, it makes
sense to use Pyrex.  Since the graphics library is written in C++, it makes 
sense to use SWIG.
For other things, it makes sense to use Boost.  I could easily see a Python 
application that
imports modules that were created using all three tools, and the 
application developer doesn't need
to know.

>So it is a blancing act, do we
>shoehorn ODE to fit into the Boost model, or do it the clean and quick way 
>with Pyrex?

I vote for clean and quick.  :-)

>Btw, is anybody in the San Francisco area?

I'm in Waterloo, Ontario Canada (about an hour west of Toronto).


--
   Bernie Roehl
   University of Waterloo Dept of Electrical and Computer Engineering
   Mail: br...@ec...   Voice: (519) 888-4567 x 2607 [work]
   URL: http://ece.uwaterloo.ca/~broehl