Elijah Newren wrote: > On 7/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Mike Kestner wrote: >> >> > My Gtk#-lite 2.16 binding would be allowed to break API in 2.18 as >> long >> > >> >as I make it parallel-installable, thereby breaking all existing >> >Gtk#-lite applications unless packagers provide Bindings release 2.16 >> >with their 2.18 desktop >> >> parallel-instabllable is the worst idea of software development. >> One ended with forked version of software and only create more >> maintaineable nightmare. We are all tremendous hackers/engineers, >> so stick to some good engineering principles :) > > > Huh? Would you really want gtk+-2.x to use the same library name as > gtk+-1.x, breaking all gtk+-1.x apps? It's not even close to the > worst idea. It's actually a very good idea -- when not overused. In > particular, combined with each version remaining stable, > parallel-installable is far better than just breaking API/ABI.
Good case. But gtk+1.x and gtk+2.x is more of the exception than norm. Didn't know how much maintaining the the gtk+ engineers still have to work on gtk+1.x, though? I can't imagine gtk+ want to do anything as dramatics as this anytime soon. The other example is gstreamer, I am sure they can share with us whether their decision to go with parallel-installable version of 0.8 and 0.10 was a pleasant exercise. Of course they were facing similar situations as is now. Of course, nothing is worst than causing a break in the applications because we change the API underneath. So therefore, it may it all the more the gtk# should be integrated into GNOME in the right libraries division, not? Because we don't want GNOME developers to keep remember which version of the API to use. -Ghee _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
