Re: [g-a-devel] RFC: AtkText simplification (take 3)

[Piñeiro <apinheiro igalia com>]

On 08/09/2013 11:02 PM, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> > I think that in the end we shouldn't worry too much about this in this
> > scope. I would maintain the temporal wrapper to the old method for this
> > bug (fwiw, bgo#705581) and think about the other problem from a more
> > general pov. I wouldn't block this patch for that issue.
> so its unclear to me how you do intend to decide if you need to use the
> old method now.

The old method will be used as a fallback. That means that now the new
method will be called, and if fails, the old one will be used. More
about that on the thread "About the fallbacks related with the new
method get_text_for_offset, and deadlines"

>  However if you don't intend to break the abi you need
> to be sure the code that defines the atkobject you're dealing with was
> compiled against atk headers that defined the new method or you could
> end up reading some uninitialized memory and interpreting it as a
> function pointer.

For that same reason, atk-bridge, that is the one that uses directly
atk, will pump up the dependency need for ATK. In the same way, in order
to not break the ABI, the new virtual method was added at the end of the
interface.

BR

-- 
Alejandro Piñeiro Iglesias