Re: is glib too bloated?

[Brandon Casey <casey nrlssc navy mil>]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Havoc Pennington wrote:

> Michael L Torrie wrote:
> > On the other hand I don't often use gobjects, the event loop,
> > call-backs, or any other part of glib in many of these little utility
> > programs.
>
> The real question of course is whether everyone's "use" and "don't use"
> lists are similar or not.

I'm thinking we should be asking whether the glib functions are
similar enough to be included in the same library and whether
they fit with the stated scope of glib as a "low-level core library".

"use and "don't use" is just going to cause a lot of bickering since
the intersection of "use" lists is pretty small.

> It's a little bit academic, since splitting up the lib wouldn't be
> ABI-compatible, so the bar for it to be worth it is extremely high.
> Embedded systems can always split it up themselves in a custom way if
> they really care.

It's always easy to add new functionality. It's hard deciding where
it's _appropriate_ to stop.

Since ABI compatibility is _very_ important. What do we do?
If we come to an academic agreement that developers would be
better served by splitting glib into a base library and a higher
level library, how do we accomplish that?

And how do we avoid situations like this in the future?

-brandon