В Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:53:56 +0000, David Chisnall написа: > It is very easy to have a stable ABI for a procedural API because > there is no notion of subclassing. Even with GObject this is not > really a problem, as it doesn't really present an OO model.
Right you are. Even then, after years of deprecating functions/entire classes and adding new fancy stuff, the GTK+ developers are considering to break the API/ABI with 3.0. It is not unusual for a large library to become unmaintainable at some point, accumulating unthinkable amounts of cruft, and the need for refactoring can become obvious. >> It would be good enough to break the ABI *only* when necessary. > > I'd agree with this. At the very least, I'd hope that people would > post a mail to gnustep-dev BEFORE breaking the ABI and not commit I think you misunderstood. As a GNUstep user and distro maintainer of GNUstep packages, I don't mind if the GNUstep developers break the ABI as much as they want (of course, the less the better). But only bump the soname of a library when there is breakage. The current release policy just doesn't make any sense (and never had for me personally). _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list Gnustep-dev@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
