-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 148
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
API cleanup #228
Comments
Agreed.
Sounds good.
Love it!
The next opportunity to do that will be Frida 17. The breakage is unfortunate, but OTOH it will completely eliminate a whole class of threading issues that I'm sure affect a lot of existing applications. (The current constraints are not really documented and thus poorly understood — but application developers shouldn't need to worry about such things to begin with.) Longer term we should probably consider having bindings be versioned separately. We will need a lot of CI/automation in place for that to become practical though. |
Could we maybe use Cython instead of having part of the library written in C and part written in Python? I haven't got to use it really but it seems to be a mature solution with many real world examples like Numpy and Pandas. |
The current API is a bit messy, especially compared to comparative wrappers like
frida-node
. I think we have three main areas where we should focus our cleanup one:src/_frida.c
and the Python wrapper of the C wrapper atfrida/core.py
. I think we should try to merge them when we can, sometimes we have Python classes that are just dumb wrappers. When we can't merge them, we should only expose the Python wrapper no matter what, otherwise it become confusing really fast.asyncio
package. We would keep the sync methods with a_sync
prefix, at least I think we should.The big question of course is how to handle this cleanup, it will break all usages of the library but it's probably for the best.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: