: /porting/sal/inc/sal/main.h

Folks,

On CWS sb71 it turned out we need to move code on Windows
from sal 
DllMain to global main.  Hennes just did that and added two
symbols to 
the sal API (sal_initialize, sal_deinitialize).

My question is:  Should it be mandatory for any application
using sal 
(i.e., any native application based on URE) to use 
SAL_IMPLEMENT_MAIN[_WITH_ARGS] from sal/main.h, or do we
want to also 
allow such an application to have its own explicit
implementation of 
main (which would then have to call sal_[de]initialize
explicitly)?  (I 
tend towards the former.)

If the former, we could and should make sal_[de]initialize
"URE private" 
symbols (that are publicly exported from sal, but not
intended to be 
explicitly called from client code), move them in 
sal/util/sal.map:1.58.12.3 from section UDK_3.7 to section
PRIVATE_1.1, 
and probably rename them to sal_detail_[de]initialize (to
match the 
naming convention of the symbols already present in section
PRIVATE_1.0).

Opinions anyone?
-Stephan

hroopenoffice.org wrote:
> Tag: cws_src680_sb71
> User: hro     
> Date: 2007-08-22 14:38:30+0000
> Modified:
>    porting/sal/inc/sal/main.h
> 
> Log:
>  #i77184# sal_initzialize and sal_deinitialize needed
for Winsock initialization
> 
> File Changes:
> 
> Directory: /porting/sal/inc/sal/
> ================================
> 
> File [changed]: main.h
> Url: http://porting.open
office.org/source/browse/porting/sal/inc/sal/main.h?r1=1.7&a
mp;r2=1.7.68.1
> Delta lines:  +24 -5
> --------------------
> --- main.h	2006-12-01 17:24:31+0000	1.7
> +++ main.h	2007-08-22 14:38:28+0000	1.7.68.1
>  -4,9 +4,9 
>   *
>   *  $RCSfile: main.h,v $
>   *
> - *  $Revision: 1.7 $
> + *  $Revision: 1.7.68.1 $
>   *
> - *  last change: $Author: rt $ $Date: 2006/12/01
17:24:31 $
> + *  last change: $Author: hro $ $Date: 2007/08/22
14:38:28 $
>   *
>   *  The Contents of this file are made available
subject to
>   *  the terms of GNU Lesser General Public License
Version 2.1.
>  -44,21 +44,40 
>  extern "C" {
>  #endif
>  
> +/* 
> +Maybe these one should be documented for those who
don't wat to use the
> +SAL_IMPLEMENT_MAINxxx macros.
> +
> +*HRO* Subject to change
> +*/
> +
> +void SAL_CALL sal_initialize();
> +void SAL_CALL sal_deinitialize();
> +
> +
>  /* Prototype needed below */
>  void SAL_CALL osl_setCommandArgs(int argc, char **
argv);
>  
>  #define SAL_MAIN_WITH_ARGS_IMPL 
>  int SAL_CALL main(int argc, char ** argv) 
>  { 
> +	int ret; 
> +	sal_initialize(); 
>  	osl_setCommandArgs(argc, argv); 
> -	return sal_main_with_args(argc, argv); 
> +	ret = sal_main_with_args(argc, argv); 
> +	sal_deinitialize(); 
> +	return ret; 
>  }
>  
>  #define SAL_MAIN_IMPL 
>  int SAL_CALL main(int argc, char ** argv) 
>  { 
> +	int ret; 
> +	sal_initialize(); 
>  	osl_setCommandArgs(argc, argv); 
> -	return sal_main(); 
> +	ret = sal_main(); 
> +	sal_deinitialize(); 
> +	return ret; 
>  }

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribeporting.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-helpporting.openoffice.org

Hi Stephan,

Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> On CWS sb71 it turned out we need to move code on
Windows from sal
> DllMain to global main.  Hennes just did that and added
two symbols to
> the sal API (sal_initialize, sal_deinitialize).

As a side note: Though I do understand why these changes are
necessary,
may I still regard them as "ugly" (IMHO, of
course)?

> 
> My question is:  Should it be mandatory for any
application using sal
> (i.e., any native application based on URE) to use
> SAL_IMPLEMENT_MAIN[_WITH_ARGS] from sal/main.h, or do
we want to also
> allow such an application to have its own explicit
implementation of
> main (which would then have to call sal_[de]initialize
explicitly)?  (I
> tend towards the former.)

Simply: yes (i.e. the former).

> 
> If the former, we could and should make
sal_[de]initialize "URE private"
> symbols (that are publicly exported from sal, but not
intended to be
> explicitly called from client code), move them in
> sal/util/sal.map:1.58.12.3 from section UDK_3.7 to
section PRIVATE_1.1,
> and probably rename them to sal_detail_[de]initialize
(to match the
> naming convention of the symbols already present in
section PRIVATE_1.0).

With a "yes" to the first question, this is also
"Yes", please make them
private.

Just my 2 cents,
Matthias

> 
> Opinions anyone?
> -Stephan
> 
> [...]

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribeporting.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-helpporting.openoffice.org