httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eric Esselink" <eesse...@sirius.com>
Subject Re: WinCE porting tips...
Date Fri, 08 Aug 1997 07:00:29 GMT
>> How different is CE from 95/NT? 
How about totally different ?
CE is created for a LOT of different platforms with different CPU's.

> Would be interesting to see what the performance would be for Apache on
CE
> (ApaCE?).
I would be surprised if it even 10% would fit into the CE memory.
Win95 performance is already a lot worse then NT, CE performance
must be slower then trying to run Apache on a 80X86 machine...

Anyway, for the daredevils among us : a WinCE programming environment
is included in the MSDN of April '97.

----------
> From: Jason A. Dour <jad@bcc.louisville.edu>
> To: new-httpd@apache.org
> Subject: WinCE porting tips...
> Date: Thursday, August 07, 1997 9:21 AM
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> Well, I garnered a few Windows CE porting tips from WinCE developers...
> 
> I forget who (Ben I think) who was interested in porting Apache to WinCe,
> but I thought I'd share the information I got with them.
> 
> Jason
> # Jason A. Dour <jad@bcc.louisville.edu>                            1101
> # Programmer Analyst II; Department of Radiation Oncology; Univ. of Lou.
> # Finger for URLs, PGP public key, geek code, PJ Harvey info, et cetera.
> 
> - ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 12:54:36 -0700
> From: Paul Meyer <pmeyer@Oceania.com>
> Reply-To: Windows CE Talk List <WindowsCE-Talk@WindowsCE.com>
> To: 'Windows CE Talk List' <WindowsCE-Talk@WindowsCE.com>
> Subject: RE: [CE] Porting information...
> 
> If your Win32 port is intended to work on Win95, and the engineers
> weren't thinking ahead to future work, they probably are building it
> using the ANSI Windows API calls (because Win95 stubs the Unicode ones)
> and using either MBCS Windows calls for string handling or (even worse)
> the C library string handling functions. Since CE is Unicode-only (and
> doesn't even stub the ANSI ones), the Win95 code is unlikely to compile,
> let alone work, for CE.
> 
> If your engineers are doing all the right, international-friendly things
> involving character sets, the comparatively minor problem that many
> other redundant API calls have been eliminated remains. For example, in
> Win32 you can draw a line onto an HDC in a couple of ways: Use MoveTo()
> and LineTo() (or MoveToEx() and LineTo()), or set up an array of points
> and call Polyline(). In CE, MoveTo() and LineTo() are not available so
> you must use Polyline. Another example: to create a GDI font handle in
> Win32 you can set up a LOGFONT structure and call CreateFontIndirect(),
> or you can call CreateFont(), which has a really long parameter list
> consisting exactly of all the members of a LOGFONT. In CE, CreateFont()
> doesn't exist so you have to use CreateFontIndirect().
> 
> Anyway, porting a carefully-written internationalizable, Unicode-aware
> Win32 program to CE is pretty easy. Porting something hacked into Win32
> from Win16 to get the Win95 logo would be much much trickier.
> 
> Ironically, porting a CE app back to NT is generally trivial except for
> some tweaking to turn your commandbar into a menu bar and a button bar.
> Writing an app to compile for 95, NT, and CE from the start is also very
> easy if you watch your Ps and Qs.
> 
> - ------------
> Paul Meyer          | John Carey's Vorlon T-shirt:
> wk: pem@oceania.com | "Always been there. Always done that."
> hm: pem@nothingbutnet.net
> 
> 
> 
> - ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 16:27:16 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Danny W." <dwyszyns@acm.poly.edu>
> To: jad@bcc.louisville.edu
> Cc: dan@panoramic.com
> Subject: Re: [CE] Porting information...
> 
> ...and when the skies parted and all was calm, Jason A. Dour spoke:
> > 
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > 
> > Hello all,
> > 
> > I've been lurking the list for a day or so...  My Velo1 is arriving
> > tomorrow -- I got to use one while setting it up for on of my
co-workers,
> > and I almost didn't want to give it back!  As a geek and writer, I
found
> > that little monster to be a better companion than my seven year old
> > "notebook."  8)
> 
> Yup, its a nifty little thing...
>  
> > I've already asked fellow Apache Group members about the possibility of
> > porting Apache to CE (even if only a scaled down super-simple version).
> > The AG has recently been working on porting to 95/NT, so I was
wondering
> > how viable a CE port would be...  Since the Win32 calls would largely
> > already be in place, would it be a matter of reviewing all of them to
> > ensure they are within the CE framework?  How different is CE from
95/NT? 
> > Apache doesn't use any GDI calls, so it's largely all disk and network
I/O
> > calls.  Can anyone give me any information whatsoever regarding the
> > possible mountain or molehill this could be?  I'm mainly curious at
this
> > point...nothing will happen until I and other AG members can allot free
> > time to work on this. 
> 
> The only restrictions you will have on the port is that you will have to
> convert all your string functions & strings to Unicode, and you might
have
> to convert your file calls if you're using fopen()-type calls.   Size
> of the executable might be an issue (but not as far as porting).  If
there's
> no flaky stuff being done on the 95/NT version, then you should have
> minimal hassle, especially if there's no GDI calls.
> 
> Would be interesting to see what the performance would be for Apache on
CE
> (ApaCE?).
>  
>  -Dan
> 
> - --
> Daniel Wyszynski
> Lead Developer
> Panoramic Software
> http://www.panoramic.com
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.2
> 
> iQCVAwUBM+n2IZo1JaC71RLxAQEmbwQAm2V7dmkkr6XMg3cOQA17z3l2lfLiprvl
> S1yjfjppKluFG0I6waSJGznU5zui5kEvt2/DRLYlofPsDvPFyTVg1B0UDTUIJtrU
> PkMoLotuVkjGvha2xfCZe3NMFUaeEO6QgmEzwGBaF+INjwCib/BZLvdCD5fZJTE0
> nJVLmjjaQ+s=
> =JCTL
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 

Mime
View raw message