On Friday, 06 July 2018 15:07:28 CEST Eric Schott wrote: > Thomas Jarosch had issues with the patch because "it might cause > breakage for existing users of the lib." > > Since my user set, while of a moderate size, is rather contained, I > implemented a "patched" libftd1 which had correct functionality. > Of course, the code compiled against my patch will not work with a > distribution supplied libftdi1. > > At this point, I feel it would be beneficial to create a correctly > working library with an incremented major number with that fix. > At the same time, I recommend implementing API changes to minimize > breakage of user code with future versions (e.g., using a PIMPL > idiom for the context structure).
breaking existing apps is still my main concern. What could work: Implement a new API function with the correct behavior and keep the old one around. Existing applications continue to work and we could put a big fat warning in the code to use the new API. Cheers, Thomas -- libftdi - see http://www.intra2net.com/en/developer/libftdi for details. To unsubscribe send a mail to [email protected]
