Sebastian Dransfeld schrieb: > Andre Magalhaes wrote: > >> On Nov 18, 2007 11:09 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 01:02:40 +0100 "Jorge Luis Zapata Muga" >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled: >>> >>> my plan was just to split it with no renaming. ecore builds as ecore. >>> ecore_evas builds as ecore_evas with its own configure etc. no need to >>> change >>> names of api calls etc. at all. this won't break any apps (maybe just the >>> configure scripts as the pkgconfig stuff will split).. and thus this can be >>> punted off until later. >>> >> That would be easy to do, and afaik no app would have to change its >> configure script, as most of >> the ecore libs (if not all) already have their own pkgconfig files. >> What about the Ecore_Support that >> this thread was about, hehe. Are you interested in it? Should we >> change Ecore_Data.h or should >> we add a new Ecore_Support.h (EAPI definitions, ECORE_MAGIC_CHECK, ...) >> and include it on Ecore.h so it wouldn't break anything? I really >> dislike to have to copy, paste code >> all over the place. >> > > Why in Ecore_Data.h and not in Ecore.h? > Maybe because Ecore_Data shouldn't depend on Ecore (after a split).
But is it really reasonable to split ecore in such small parts? In particular when you think on ecore_txt (1 function) or ecore_job (1 + 3 functions). Peter ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
