Binary modules #57
Closed
Binary modules #57
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ghost
added
the
ghost
requested a review
from 
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR introduces rudimentary support for listing and running separate binary modules from
/usr/lib/gpoa. It is expected that it will allow developers to implement their own modules in any programming language they like, leaving the role of a "glue" for Python. It is also expected that the amount of Python code in project will be minimized allowing it to evolve quicker.The motivation behind this PR is lack of strong static typing in Python.
P. S.: This will also eliminate hardcode of module calls.