Re: [Evolution-hackers] More e-d-s ABI breakage ?

[Michael Meeks <michael meeks novell com>]

Hi dudie,

On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 21:47 +0530, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote:
> I had not reviewed the patch or explored the alternatives to avoid
> breakage. I would let the addressbook hackers to comment on that.
> I do think you have a point above, though.

	Good 'oh :-) should be easy to fix and downgrade that .so number at
least.

> Point taken - The original patch would have introduced a break - this
> was reworked as an append before it was committed.

	Which is great; thanks.

> > > The #313533 patch was vital for Ross Burton's dbus-based EDS and running
> > > EDS on devices (say Nokia 770) would not be possible w/o this change.
> > 
> > 	Nonsense - at least the link above has no API change that is necessary
> > for dbus or Nokia 770 support - unless I'm missing something huge; good
> > buzz-words though :-) 
>
> I feel sorry to know you would think I would stoop to get around the
> issue with buzzwords. 

	So - I think we're talking at cross purposes here, :-) so - my issue is
that the whole Nokia / performance thing / whatever is -almost always-
orthogonal to the ABI breakage.

	I'm *excited* about adding new features to e-d-s, don't suppose for a
moment that I want to stop that process, hinder features getting in,
and/or make your life a misery: that is emphatically not my aim.

	My interest is in getting these things done compatibly; and I've yet to
see an addition that could not be done (quite neatly) in such a way. So
- when I ask why the ABI was broken, and I hear this "it was vital for
Nokia" thing :-) I get confused.

> The performance tests showed this was prohibitive for EDS on DBUS.  

	Sure, sure it's a nice feature - but as I say, my problem is not at all
with the feature itself, only the unnecessary ABI/API breakage.

> See http://www.go-evolution.org/DBus_Port_of_EDS .

	And I'm well up for this too :-)

	HTH,

		Michael.

-- 
 michael meeks novell com  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot