[JDEV] Jabber/C contributing issues, was: MIU

maqi at jabberstudio.org maqi at jabberstudio.org
Thu Sep 4 05:42:29 CDT 2003

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Andrew Sayers wrote:

>> We have memory leaks in almost all transports (even in jabberd itself) for
>> C is a nightmare concerning this.
[...C libraries lack...]
> Of course, this still slows down development of secure C apps, but it's
> far from an insurmountable problem.

Of course this is not an insurmountable problem. One can cope with that
with a little effort. But so one has to do for innumerable other things
that are only a problem because C lacks. So we simply *don't* cope with
the problem (save we have very much manpower). That's the current status.

> I don't see how standardising the documentation format is relevant here.

I'm talking of code documentation, not user documentation. Just like
JavaDoc, Doxygen can provide a simple and handy code documentation once it
is set up and the code is commented accordingly. You know Doxygen or

> As well as that, projects under active development tend to make
> documentation obsolete

JavaDoc/Doxygen documentation is at every time in sync with the code as
it's *part* of the code.

>> We have no functions in the transports that implement for example per-user
>> based settings (looks like nobody wants to implement this without OOP).
> I like OOP (some of my best friends are object-oriented ;), but I really
> don't see how it's useful in a jabber transport.  If I did, I'd use C++,
> but that's an argument for another day.
> On the other hand, implementing per-user settings really is hard without
> pubsub

As a quick hack, one could configure the transports simply by messaging
the transport contact (no pubsub required but of course this can also be
implemented). And you know what?- JGF supports that. No C or C++ transport
does. Strange, isn't it? ;-)

> It sounds like your problem here is not so much C programs as badly
> documented programs.  Again, dislike of documentation is
> language-neutral :)

Yes, I acknowledge the "C vs. Java" statement was a bit too short. But
take a look at the reality. While most Java libraries are documented in at
least some way (for JavaDoc was available at every time and a standard for
Java), you can't say the same for most C or C++ projects. Or at least
that's my impression.

Well, enough rant. While I can't help people really wanting to torture
themselves with C ;-), I hereby offer to help with the code documentation
issue to any projects that are interested (by setting up Doxygen or
something similar).


More information about the JDev mailing list