-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 21 June 2003 12:25, Chris Vine wrote: > On Wednesday 18 June 2003 12:53 pm, Murray Cumming wrote: > > On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 12:16, Dean Kutryk wrote: > > > So what I'm wondering about is the future of Gtkmm. > > > > 1. GTK+ and GNOME will clearly be very successful and widespread in the > > future. Many companies need them. They have a bright future. > > 2. gtkmm has matured and demonstrated more understanding of API > > stability than most proprietary toolkits. Over the past few years we > > have had the following stable gtkmm releases: gtkmm 1.2, 2.0, 2.2. gtkmm > > 2.4 has already been started. We are state-of-the-art. Nobody else is > > even up-to-date with modern C++ > > The present (or, at least, recent) approach to API stability in gtkmm is > not to break API (and indeed ABI) between extra-version numbers, but it > does permit API breakage between minor as well as major number versions. > At any rate, your initial posting announcing gtkmm-2.3 indicated API > breakage would be acceptable with respect to gtkmm-2.2. > > This may have changed, but if not I doubt it shows "more understanding of > API stability than most proprietary toolkits", in the sense in which those > who write proprietary code which use them are likely to understand the > expression. gtkmm's policy no ABI breakage between extra version numbers > has however seemed to me to be exemplary, and perhaps that is what you > meant? > > gtkmm is certainly state-of-the-art, which unfortunately tends to pull in > the opposite direction from API stability. > > Chris. > > _______________________________________________ > gtkmm-list mailing list > gtkmm-list gnome org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list Hi, I'm new to this list but this is my point of view.... API: I tried to compile a glib/gtk 2.2 application on a machine powered by a gnome 2.0 release and it did not compile. Is it normal? If glib/gtk API is not stable among minor release, we do not have to expect glibmm/gtkmm to be frozen after a major release. It is enough for glibmm/gtkmm API stability not to be broken between extra-versionnumbers. Anyway, I'd like to be sure that applications written with gtk 2.4 will compile with gtk 2.2... and if C API won't be broken, C++ API must be kept completely backward compatible. ABI: It has surely to be frozen after a major release! A lot of people does not like to compile their applications... ABI stability is necessary for Windows commercial software to be ported on Gnome. I attach my public key to this e-mail. Andrea -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+9KhokL76YBIYEmwRAgyIAKCfK1TDQrim90wLa/NEwiawX5WnVQCePZ9J km+hv40yXQGTD8kAW/t/zFI= =ocbv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Attachment:
public_key.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys