Re: Shipping Vera with 2.4

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?

	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]