Mathias Bauer wrote: > > limit impact considerations to non-ABI-dependent UNO bindings > > (i.e. the assumption is that c++ components break randomly anyway > > for every other release, so they shouldn't block API changes) > > This is not true; in fact on Windows C++ extensions are very stable and > at least without a base line change that should be true for other > platforms as well (some discipline assumed). > Hi Mathias,
well, Win32 is only one platform, and experience tells that in general, c++ extension *do* break between releases. But you're right, that's not necessarily caused by ABI changes in the strict meaning of the word, a case in point is the 3 layer OOo rework. > My take on that would be: if we allow for incompatible API changes in > e.g. a major release, there's no reason not to allow incomatible changes > in the C++ libs also. Maybe that's what you wanted to express. > No, but that's surely something I can buy into as well. What I wanted to express is that the c++ API/ABI is fragile enough IMO to not hold back with changes that *deliberately* break compatibility there. People should really be encouraged to use (or at least wrap their stuff with) Java or Python when doing extensions; that would also quite nicely solve the problem of (non-)cross-platformness. ;) Cheers, -- Thorsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
