Re: [VB4Linux-Dev] I hate subjects
Status: Planning
Brought to you by:
luke-jr
From: Matthew K. <kel...@po...> - 2001-03-09 19:46:25
|
Luke-Jr wrote: > Hmm... How about branching off JUST enough so it's not Windows-specific? > For example, have programs refer to .so (I /THINK/ this is the *nix > equivalent) instead of .DLLs and just temperarally ignore that Windows > API using programs will break? > And instead of OCXes, something else (does X have a similar > component?)... I know that other groups have tried implementing M$'s DB scheme on UNIX (most notable, the StarOffice Suite), but have had a miserable time at it. You could check the StarOffice source, I think that their MDB stuff is still in there, although it's probably "IFDEF"'d out so it doesn't compile in. In order to implement this we would most definitely have to build an ODBC/DSN system for UNIX, and that would, IMHO, detract from the otherwise noble goal of bringing a really-cool rapid application development language/interface to the Linux/UNIX world. I guess it comes down to do you want 95% of Windows-built VB apps to work 80% of the time, or 80% of the Windows-built VB apps to work 95% of the time. :) I, personally, think offering *nix database support using the same VB DB interface is a far more noble/better goal, than offering M$DB support, but then again, I'm biased. ;) X itself has no OCX-equivalent, however the GTK programming language does have a very OCXish object file model. .so's are, more or less, the equivalent to .DLL's, the problem is that the only place where they are used, really, is within the kernel and operating system. Apache web server has .so support, and a couple of other packages, but most UNIX apps prefer static linking libraries to dynamic ones. -- Matthew Keller Enterprise Systems Analyst Computing & Technology Services Information Services Division State University of New York at Potsdam Website: http://mattwork.potsdam.edu/ PGP: http://mattwork.potsdam.edu/crypto/ |