Seems reasonable to me. What about versioning? Are the bindings going to have an independent release cycle compared to the main Qpid components ?
Rajith On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Darryl L. Pierce <dpie...@redhat.com> wrote: > Last week Ted and I talked about moving the language bindings out from > under the cpp directory tree. So, in the end, we'd have something like: > > qpid/ > cpp/ > bindings/ > qpid/ > perl/ > python/ > ruby/ > > (unless someone has a better suggestion) > > Also, during a discussion today with Justin we talked about versioning > the generated language bindings from SWIG in those bindings directory. I > have mixed feelings on this, but also wanted to solicit opinions on > doing this. > > The big benefit to this would be breaking the Cmake dependencies between > the bindings and the cpp build tree. We could build them independently, > which is a Good Thing (tm). > > The downside, though, is when the public APIs change and the SWIG > bindings aren't updated. Though we'd find out pretty quickly that they > were out of date. > > Opinions? Thoughts? > > -- > Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc. > Delivering value year after year. > Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors. > http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/ > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
