From: Lyle Johnson <lyle@...>
Date: 2002-08-25T14:21:14+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby and Judy

Christopher Browne wrote:
> I'd think it almost as sensible to consider throwing it in at a
> "lower" level than SWIG.

Yes, this was brought up on another branch of this thread ;)

To be clear, the extent of what I'm currently working on will just 
expose three new classes (Judy1, JudyL and JudySL) to Ruby; it's not an 
attempt to replace Ruby's current hashing code with Judy arrays. But I 
agree that it would be interesting to see if this offers any benefits.

> The thing that concerns me is that there are some sections of the
> document where the authors document the design where they leave out
> some bits that seem to refer to possible patenting of pieces of the
> techniques.
> 
> It would be fairly distressing to (for instance) make Ruby associative
> arrays into Judy arrays, only to discover that this makes any
> resultant code dependent on the good graces of HP's lawyers...

Since the code is now released under the LGPL this shouldn't be a 
problem (assuming that it's compatible with Ruby's license).