Re: A GNOME Bindings release set?
- From: James Henstridge <james daa com au>
- To: Murray Cumming Comneon com
- Cc: mkestner ximian com, language-bindings gnome org, release-team gnome org
- Subject: Re: A GNOME Bindings release set?
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:00:15 +0800
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]