Re: EggRecent breakage

[Mike Hearn <mike navi cx>]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 11:02:41 +0000, Ross Burton wrote:
> Ignoring the fact that the <Count> element is not in the specification
> (I honestly can't remember what James said about this, but I think it
> was along the lines of "only egg and OO.o use the spec, so we can it
> shortly"), should I:

GIMP does as well now, I think. Also you can't really publish a spec and
then say "oh well nobody is using it anyway so it's OK to change",
otherwise it's not really a standard. It's just a temporary agreement.

> a) revert the changes to libegg, removing the <Count> element, and
>    ruining my cunning applet, or
> b) start a mass update of libegg in the core modules

  c) Bump the version number of the recent files list and have the new
     version of EggRecent maintain both new and old to avoid breaking
     other stuff

Yeah it's ugly. I don't think the spec ever said anything about how robust
parsing should be against file format changes. Clearly, no matter what it
says some stuff wasn't robust enough and libegg can be copied/pasted by
anybody :(

How cunning is your cunning applet? Is it cunning enough to be worth it?

At some point the recent files thing needs to be firmed up and moved into
some proper versioned shared library anyway, maybe GTK+ or maybe somewhere
else. I don't think we should worry too much about hacks like (c) now as
it might all be scrapped in favour of a better system in future.

thanks -mike