> Why have you decided to write a binary for each functionality? What do > you think about have them all in only one binary? (or at least the > bluetoothd related ones) My mentor (Alok Barsode) advised to write different tools for different functionality. I originally wanted to write a one utility for all. At the beginning of the project, I asked the opinions what should I choose (a one binary or some binaries). But almost no one responded. On 17 August 2010 14:59, Gustavo F. Padovan <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Alexander, > > * Alexander Orlenko <zxteam@xxxxxxxxx> [2010-08-16 10:24:23 +1100]: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> I updated project info page at http://hostisdown.org/gsoc/projects/bluez-tools >> Created project home page: http://code.google.com/p/bluez-tools >> Current release available for download: 0.1.18-6432 >> >> Code of my project does not based on non-GTK parts of >> libgnome-bluetooth. I wrote glib gobjects for all bluez dbus >> interfaces. >> I will continue developing my project after end of GSoC. > > Why have you decided to write a binary for each functionality? What do > you think about have them all in only one binary? (or at least the > bluetoothd related ones) > > > -- > Gustavo F. Padovan > http://padovan.org > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
