Re: Proposed Modules, My Take

[Chipzz <chipzz ULYSSIS Org>]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, 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.

You're talking bs and your example is 100% wrong.
It IS the same as saying that gtkmm is stable, but g++ is not.

regards,

Chipzz AKA
Jan Van Buggenhout
-- 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 UNIX isn't dead - It just smells funny
                           Chipzz ULYSSIS Org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Baldric, you wouldn't recognize a subtle plan if it painted itself pur-
 ple and danced naked on a harpsicord singing 'subtle plans are here a-
 gain'."