Re: 2.3 Proposed Features
- From: Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>
- To: Luis Villa <louie ximian com>
- Cc: Ettore Perazzoli <ettore ximian com>, Christian Meyer <chrisime uni de>, Glynn Foster <glynn foster sun com>, aes gnome org, jdub perkypants org, desktop-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: 2.3 Proposed Features
- Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 02:23:16 -0500
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 02:07:59AM -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
> As far as I can see, the GNOME experience with libegg so far is that
> unstable API means unstable user-visible experience, because things get
> imported unevenly and updated unevenly, and that is if/when they are
> imported at all. So, I'm well aware of the distinction you're
> describing, but so far the /practical/ distinction between the two
> problems is small. Or so it seems to a naive but slightly technically
> skilled user. :)
Well, we do have one other model for doing uncommitted API, which is
the libgnome-desktop/libwnck/libstartup-notification model. That one
is also an option.
My feeling on cut-and-paste is that it can never be worse than every
app implementing its own thing separately. It beats wheel reinvention.
Sure it kind of sucks, but remember that a shared lib with
soname-of-the-week kind of sucks too.
] [Thread Prev