Re: A GNOME Bindings release set?



On 25/11/2003 3:37 PM, Murray Cumming Comneon com wrote:

Mike Kestner wrote:
On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 04:40, Murray Cumming Comneon com wrote:
That does not include non-developer platform API such as libgnomeprint, or libgda. It's great if you wrap those, but
it needs
to be done separately. So if you currently bundle lots of stuff together in one package, you need to put the extra stuff in
a separate
package.
Why? I don't understand why we would need to force people to fragment their bindings. Can you explain the reasoning behind this requirement?

So that people can more clearly identify what is a binding for the GNOME
developer platform, and so that we can more clearly identify whether they
are following the API/ABI rules. Modularity is good.

The number of tarballs used to distribute the source code of a binding
should have very little effect on developers. I encourage people to
encourage people to create umbrella packages on distros to make it easier
for people to get their bindings.
I would have to agree with Mike here. How exactly does the inclusion of gnome-print binding in the same tarball as other gnome developer platform bindings make a difference?

If Mike's C# bindings are anything like the Python ones, then the gnome-print bindings would be exposed to the programmer as a separate module, so they would know if they were using gnome-print or not. Surely it is fairly obvious that no part of a language binding is any more stable than the library it wraps.

I am sure that GTK# and gnome-python would not be the only bindings inconvenienced by this sort of (unnecessary) requirement.

James.

--
Email: james daa com au
WWW:   http://www.daa.com.au/~james/






[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]