Yes, that's a good point, after thinking a little bit. So, dwg.h and dwg.c should be renamed to something else, so that api.h and api.c could be named like dwg.h and dwg.c
So, new steps: 1 - Rename dwg_struct.c/h -> dwg_struct.c/h 2 - Rename api.c/h -> api.c/h Where "dwg_struct" is just a quick suggestion, maybe something clearer could be used. 2013/8/20 Till Heuschmann <[email protected]> > > I do not think that the api.h should be copied into the dwg.h file. The > user should not have access to the dwg.h file and the internal structs. The > object system that libredwg uses is something that needs some redesign, > like you mentioned on your ideas page. > > > Am 20.08.2013 um 14:18 schrieb Felipe Castro <[email protected]>: > > And here goes the "HOWTO": > > 1 - You may copy the content of "api.h" into "dwg.h"; > 2 - And add "api.c" to src dir, adding also to the _SOURCES in Makefile.am. > > If you have problems doing like this (step 2), them copy also the content > of "api.c" to "dwg.c", then no need to modify the Makefile.am > > > 2013/8/20 Felipe Castro <[email protected]> > >> Hi, the simplest and recommended way, I think, would be the user having >> to include only the <dwg.h> file. >> >> It would be optional to the user to access dwg data directly from the >> structures or from the api functions. The api documentation would not >> recommend direct access to the structures, but if the user wants, no >> problem. >> >> >> >> 2013/8/20 gagan <[email protected]> >> >>> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Felipe Castro <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > Yes, that's ok for testing purposes, but when someone wants to merge >>> your code into the master branch, how would be the approach to integrate >>> it, just including "api.h" from "dwg.h" would be ok? >>> >>> Please tell me what approach should be used for integrating api / >>> including api files in other applications. >>> >>> -- >>> Thanks >>> Gaganjyot >>> http://codeify.wordpress.com >>> "Jai Sai Naath" >>> >>> >> >
