Re: Putting the 'Mono debate' back on the rails

[Ghee Teo Sun COM]

Elijah Newren wrote:

> On 7/24/06, Ghee Teo sun com <Ghee Teo sun com> wrote:
>
> > Mike Kestner wrote:
> >
> > > My Gtk#-lite 2.16 binding would be allowed to break API in 2.18 as 
> > long
> > >
> > >as I make it parallel-installable, thereby breaking all existing
> > >Gtk#-lite applications unless packagers provide Bindings release 2.16
> > >with their 2.18 desktop
> >
> >    parallel-instabllable is the worst idea of software development.
> > One ended with forked version of software and only create more
> > maintaineable nightmare. We are all tremendous hackers/engineers,
> > so stick to some good engineering principles :)
>
>
> Huh?  Would you really want gtk+-2.x to use the same library name as
> gtk+-1.x, breaking all gtk+-1.x apps?  It's not even close to the
> worst idea.  It's actually a very good idea -- when not overused.  In
> particular, combined with each version remaining stable,
> parallel-installable is far better than just breaking API/ABI.

  Good case. But gtk+1.x and gtk+2.x is more of the exception than norm.
Didn't know how much maintaining the the gtk+ engineers still have to work
on gtk+1.x, though? I can't imagine gtk+ want to do anything as dramatics
as this anytime soon.

  The other example is gstreamer, I am sure they can share with us whether
their decision to go with parallel-installable version of 0.8 and 0.10 was a
pleasant exercise. Of course they were facing similar situations as is now.

  Of course, nothing is worst than causing a break in the applications 
because
we change the API underneath. So therefore, it may it all the more the gtk#
should be integrated into GNOME in the right libraries division, not? 
Because
we don't want GNOME developers to keep remember which version of the API 
to use.



-Ghee