Re: [Evolution-hackers] New 'eclient' branch in eds

[Matthew Barnes <mbarnes redhat com>]

On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 19:53 +0200, Milan Crha wrote: 
> Only the last thing for the enum values, I would personally prefer
> something with a prefix E_CLIENT_SOURCE_TYPE_... only to not have it
> confusion-able with E_CLIENT_TYPE constant.

Do you mean E_TYPE_CLIENT (for getting EClientClass's GType)?

Regardless, I'm fine with the longer prefix if you'd prefer that.


> By the way, the proposed merge of server side parts, it may also involve
> merging client side bits (for E*View) and thus finally drop all the old
> cruft. It's a benefit, I hope, even with broken backward compatibility.
> (I would prefer to break backward compatibility personally, rather than
> inventing special names for structs not intersect with old names.)

I haven't been following the E*View changes very closely.  What's
considered cruft?