Re: Proposed Modules, My Take

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 14:58 -0500, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 19:53 +0000, Mike Hearn wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:16:45 -0500, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> > > If a module isn't going to offer a stable ABI throughout the major GNOME
> > > release series then it doesn't belong anywhere except the Desktop
> > > release.
> > 
> > I think the problem here is that people assume the bindings operate under
> > the same rules as the developer platform - that is what makes intuitive
> > sense. After all Apple don't say "Cocoa is stable unless you use Java" -
> > the Java bindings operate under the same rules as the 'native' Objective-C
> > APIs do.
> 
> According to this:
> http://developer.gnome.org/dotplan/bindings/rules.html
> 
> New versions must not break ABI.  While PyGTK itself does not break, it
> does heavily depend on the ABI of Python and that *does* break.  It's
> like saying it's alright if GTK+ is stable but glib can be unstable.
> Unless each release of GNOME has a standard Python version that must be
> available with that release, PyGTK would be breaking the spirit of the
> rules, if not the exact letter of the rules.

The application must specify the version of python. If not then the
application is choosing not to use a stable ABI.

If the application does specify a version of python, then pygtk is not
going to break the application by releasing a newer version.

-- 
Murray Cumming
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com