Hi, On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Vyacheslav Reutskiy <reutskiy....@gmail.com > wrote:
> Hello > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Stefan Schmidt <ste...@osg.samsung.com> > wrote: > > > Hello. > > > > On 18/09/15 10:41, Vyacheslav Reutskiy wrote: > > > Really, I don't like to a remove API's, but they have not body. > > > > > > Stub function as implementation - we can do it, but it's smell as > > > an attempt to revive the corpse. I would not have left this API's, > > > but If some one say that they need and should stay, I revert commit > > > and make new, where it marked as deprecated and have a some > > > stub. > > > > Lets wait some time before reverting anything here. I want to hear at > > least an opinion from Cedric on this. Guess raster might also have > > something to add. > > > > Of course wait! I'm not going to do revert, without others opinions > > If there is a symbol in the existing .so files, then the API must not be removed. An empty stub function is necessary for legacy compatibility. If an application was (purposedly or erroneously) linking to this function, then it will fail to link to EFL at runtime. This would not be acceptable. So, mark the functions as deprecated, but keep a stub if there were public symbols before. If there was no symbol, then application build-time linking would fail, so it should be fine to remove the stub. Best regards, -- Jean-Philippe André ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
