Re: libgnomeoffice* status

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>]

On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 17:14, Dave Malcolm wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 10:44, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > > (iii)  Should I add the gnome-office module as an external dependency,
> > > or should I create a cut-n-paste code subdirectory within my source
> > > tree, and synchronise on a regular basis?
> > >
> > I guess the best thing is for all GO apps to depend on it externally.
> 
> Yes, but at the moment, are there tarballs I can tell my users to go and
> download, with some kind of ABI guarantee?
> 
I can make a release whenever needed, if that's what you mean. About ABI
warranty, well, not sure, since the code there hasn't been really
discussed thoroughly. But I think the base plugin system should remain
more or less the same. So, yeah, no ABI warranty.

The new additions that are planned, of course, will also break that ABI
compatibility over and over, at least for the next few months.

> If the lib is still changing a lot it seems wiser for now to do a
> libegg-style approach and have a local copy inside my app's source tree,
> and to declare the ABI as stable at some point when we make it external.
> 
well, libegg is a temporary library, whose code has never been released.
We plan to do releases of gnome-office. There hasn't been none because
we were waiting after GO 1.0 was out.

> Currently I have no external dependencies apart from ones that come as
> standard with Gnome 2.0, and I want to minimise the pain of adding new
> ones.
> 
if you are going to be included in GO, depending on libgnomeoffice is
not a bad choice, I guess.

I dont know, it's your choice to copy the code over, but I really think
libgnomeoffice is not a bad library to depend on. Specially if the
library reaches its 1.0 version in 6 months (which I suppose is the plan
if we all agree on using it).

And the sooner we all start using, the sooner it will get accepted and
stable.

cheers