1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
|
[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2008, 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]
[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license
is included in the section entitled
[[GNU_Free_Documentation_License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
[[!meta title="Bindings to Other Programming Languages"]]
The main idea of the Hurd design is giving users the ability to easily
modify/extend the system's functionality ([[extensible_system|extensibility]]).
This is done by creating [[filesystem_translators|hurd/translator]] and other
kinds of Hurd servers.
However, in practice this is not as easy as it should, because creating
translators and other servers is quite involved -- the interfaces for doing
that are not exactly simple, and available only for C programs. Being able to
easily create simple translators in RAD languages is highly desirable, to
really be able to reap the advantages of the Hurd architecture.
Originally Lisp was meant to be the second system language besides C in the GNU
system; but that doesn't mean we are bound to Lisp. Bindings for any popular
high-level language, that helps quickly creating simple programs, are highly
welcome.
Several approaches are possible when creating such bindings. One way is simply
to provide wrappers to all the available C libraries ([[hurd/libtrivfs]], [[hurd/libnetfs]]
etc.). While this is easy (it requires relatively little consideration), it may
not be the optimal solution. It is preferable to hook in at a lower level, thus
being able te create interfaces that are specially adapted to make good use of
the features available in the respective language.
These more specialised bindings could hook in at some of the lower level
library interfaces ([[hurd/libports]], [[hurd/glibc]], etc.); use the
[[microkernel/mach/MIG]]-provided [[microkernel/mach/RPC]] stubs directly; or
even create native stubs directly from the interface definitions. The
[[lisp_bindings_created_by_Flavio_Cruz|flaviocruz]] in last year's GSoC mostly
use the latter approach, and can serve as a good example.
There is another possible reason for preferring lower-level bindings:
Presently, the Hurd server libraries use the cthreads threading library, which
predates the pthread standard prevalent today. There is a pthread library for
the Hurd as well, but it's not possible to use both cthreads and pthreads in
the same executable. Thus, until
[[porting_the_Hurd_libraries_to_pthreads|community/gsoc/project_ideas/pthreads]]
is finished, implementing bindings for any language that uses pthreads (in the
runtime environment or the actual programs) is only possible when not using the
standard Hurd server libraries at all -- i.e. when binding at MIG stub level or
interface definition level.
The task is to create easy to use Hurd bindings for a language of the student's
choice, and some example servers to prove that it works well in practice. This
project will require gaining a very good understanding of the various Hurd
interfaces. Skills in designing nice programming interfaces are a must.
Anatoly A. Kazantsev has started working on [Python
bindings](http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/pyhurd/) last year -- if Python
is your language of choice, you probably should take his work and complete it.
There was also some previous work on [Perl
bindings](http://www.nongnu.org/hurdextras/#pith), which might serve as a
reference if you want to work on Perl.
Possible mentors: Anatoly A. Kazantsev (jim-crow) for Python
|
