bindings fifth toe [gnome sandal? :) [was RE: 2.4 Module List and Rationale (aka GEP10 and 11)

[Luis Villa <louie ximian com>]

[Firstly, BTW, this thread should really at least cc: if not primarily
be on desktop-devel-list, which is the specified discussion thread for
the current GEPs and presumably would be for the library GEP when it
gets written.]

[Secondly, am I going to return from my trip before you do, Sander? :)

On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 09:23, Murray Cumming Comneon com wrote:
> > From: Sander Vesik [mailto:sander_traveling yahoo co uk] 
> > Just IMHO but it makes sense to not freeze non-finished stuff 
> > and just leave 
> > these out and add them in in the next release.
> 
> In the case of libgnomeuimm, I have considered freezing it in an incomplete
> state and branching because:
> - The unstable part of the API, Bonobo, isn't used by most people.
> - And that won't be finished any time soon.
> 
> Sometimes API stability is only for the sake of API stability.

It seems that it we stamp this with big warnings saying 'not API stable'
it's not really an issue. 

I was thinking, FWIW, that this would be closer to a fifth toe for
bindings than Desktop or Platform- just something to point people at,
get some publicity for, etc.

> > To me (but 
> > this might be just me) it makes even sense to go for a 
> > consistent coverage for a potentially smaller  set of modules 
> > than have a very mish-mash experience as to what is supported 
> > by which binding. 
> 
> I think that might be an unreasonable aim for the bindings. And it would be
> unfair to some bindings if we had to only include the lowest common
> denominator.

I'd suggest that the compromise here is to document what is supported
everywhere and then ship everything anyway. :) i.e., a comparison chart
in the release notes saying:
	gtkmm	pygtk	gtk#	gtk-perl
gtk: 	yes	yes	yes	yes
bonobo:	partial	yes	no	no

[values above pulled out of my ass, no idea if they are accurate or not]
or something like that.

Luis