Re: [Evolution-hackers] Camel plans and possibilities

Hi Michael,

thanks for putting this into writing.

>  - should remove dependent headers from header files, force client code
>    to include appropriate header dependencies, a-la libc.

Why?  What problems does the current setup cause?

None of the other GNOME libraries does this, and it's much nicer to use
a library when you don't have to include multiple headers just to get
one class/functionality.

>  - what to do about e-util - we only use a few non-gui related files
> from e-util,
>    could either copy, or move them to camel/e-util and rename it.

Yeah I think most (all?) of the stuff that Camel needs from e-util is
only needed by Camel itself or the mailer.

> nntp
>  - unmaintained

We should keep a list of things like this one that could have appeal for
other contributors.  Although I don't see many people getting excited
about NNTP these days...

> camel.h
>  - imho, remove this, or at least, change it not to inlude all of camel

I don't think it should be removed.  It's nice to just do #include
<camel.h> if you just want all the functionality and do not care about
inclusion speed.

(I don't want to sound pedantic, but if we are going to export more APIs
from Evolution we should make them consistent, so we should agree on
these details.)

-- Ettore

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