On 5.8.2011 1.28, "ext Hugo Lima" <[email protected]> wrote: > >Matti, I think we don't need a PSEP, PSEPs are for PySide things, this >is specific to Shiboken based bindings, PySide is included as well but >it isn't the focus, I mean, this module is not made to access PySide >internal stuff, but Shiboken internal stuff, it's highly tied to >Shiboken, if we create a PSEP and change the PySide backend from >Shiboken to something else in an unknown future the PSEP could turn >into a non sense PSEP.
OK, but Shiboken is developer under the PySide umbrella, and hence our commitments to an open-governance process and the PSEP design approach apply here too. The proposed module would be a non-trivial Python API closely related to PySide, and therefore would still require an open design process, IMO. Also, the PSEP also works as a specification and documentation for new featuers, and they would be required in any case for a new module, even if the PSEP wasn't done. There are no plans to replace Shiboken in PySide, so that's a moot point. But even if that would happen, there would be absolutely no harm done. The PSEP would just become obsolete then. >This also explain why to name the module "shiboken" instead of put it >into PySide module, there's no technical reasons to make this module >depend on PySide and being a separate module all Shiboken based >bindings can have gain. Point taken. This I can live with. >P.S.: Suggestions about the module implementation, what functions it >need to have, etc could be made here or on the bug report[1], I'll >read both anyway. > >[1] http://bugs.pyside.org/show_bug.cgi?id=902 No need for commenting on the bug - we have the well-defined PSEP process for defining implementations anyway. ;-) ma. _______________________________________________ PySide mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pyside.org/listinfo/pyside
