Re: libegg revisited

On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 16:39, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Hey,
> 	I found myself hunting for the thread that brought about libegg to try
> and remind myself of the rationale behind it:
> 	So, we've had libegg for 7 months now. I think we're in a better

February of 2002 would make for 19 months.  ;-)

> position than if we'd continued using the eel, gal or gnome-desktop
> model, but there are some definite problems with libegg as it stands:

eel and gal both still exist, of course.  which is insane, if you ask
me, but I don't get to dictate sanity.  :P

> 	1) The multiple copies of the code are not generally not being kept up
> to date in the modules where they are being used. I think we need some
> mechanism whereby the maintainer of the code in libegg notifies the
> holders of copies of any changes. Either that or libegg should be
> installing loads of little static libraries. Actually, I think the
> latter way could work well.

Then you run into build/link time problems.  A static library of soem
part of egg installed yesterday might have a different API/ABI than that
of today.

> 	2) There's no doubt - various bits are languishing in libegg. They
> either don't have a clear destination library or the path to get it into
> the destination library isn't clear. What's supposed to happen here is
> that the author and maintainer of the destination library are
> responsible for making sure things are progressing, but that's not
> working very well. Perhaps we can have some overall libegg maintainers
> who can get nazi on people's asses and kick out things that aren't
> progressing.

That would be most cool.

> 	Thoughts ?
> Cheers,
> Mark.
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
Sean Middleditch <elanthis awesomeplay com>
AwesomePlay Productions, Inc.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]