Re: Shipping Vera with 2.4
- From: Jody Goldberg <jody gnome org>
- To: Sander Vesik <sander_traveling yahoo co uk>
- Cc: GNOME Desktop Hackers <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Shipping Vera with 2.4
- Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:33:02 -0500
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 02:59:28PM +0000, Sander Vesik wrote:
> If the librecentfiles - or similar - is a simple self contained library
> that does one thing, does it well, does not contain non-trivial amounts of
> copy-paste code and can be used with dlopen with no major hurdles from one
> place, then I obviously agree. This changes largely for linking to a
> multipurpose stack of libraries to get (essentialy) one function.
I'd be very hesitant to call glib a 'multipurpose stack of
libraries'. As we're evolving (at glacial speeds) towards a
mutually acceptable set of libraries that KDE/OO/GNOME are willing
to link to libxml and glib seem to be acheiving the necessary level
of ubiquity. Witness libgsf, it is heavily dependent on gobject and
is now a dependency for koffice.
> I'm not exactly a fan of everybody linking to a static expat library, but
> its a sort of workable solution - the same would not apply to an evolving
> infrastructure.
Evolving interfaces are not good choices for sharing.
> >Not that a spec is a bad thing, but a solid implementation trumps it.
>
> You normaly need a spec for a solid implementation, otherwise, how do you
> tell its is doing what it is supposed to?
Iteratively.
do
list_of_crack = write_spec (&spec, complexity);
while (complexity < TIRED_PEOPLE && fix_spec (&spec, list_of_crack));
(please ignore the leak)
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]