- From: Murray Cumming <murrayc usa net>
- To: Mark McLoughlin <mark skynet ie>
- Cc: Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>, Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>, Gnome Hackers <gnome-hackers gnome org>, Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>, fcrozat mandrakesoft com, bonobo <gnome-components-list gnome org>, orbit-list <orbit-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: gep-1
- Date: 27 Aug 2002 10:07:38 +0100
On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 09:31, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Hi Murray,
> On 27 Aug 2002, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > On Mon, 2002-08-26 at 21:53, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > > > I would prefer complete merge or complete separation, rather than
> > > > something in-between, for the sake of simplicity. And I would prefer
> > > > complete merge because it requires less work.
> > >
> > > Okay fair enough. I would be swayed towards the separation of
> > > the two then. We already have bindings language bindings that rely on
> > > ORBit2 internals (although it should be possible to make the scripting
> > > bindings not do this) so the c++ binding would just become another in
> > > the set.
> > Can you give us some kind of timescale for you to do this work? We have
> > already spent a lot of time on the branch and for the last few weeks
> > we've just been waiting for the merge. I don't look forward to yet more
> > delay. It seems a little late to be this idealistic.
> This isn't a big job at all. A couple of days at the very
> outside. We just need to come to a decision.
If you can do it fast then it's fine with me. And I don't just mean the
creation of the language bindings module. I won't believe that that API
is sufficient until a separate ORBit2/C++ builds. That's me acting like
an ignorant manager, but it would be foolish of me to pretend to
understand the ORBit internals fully.
I am interested to know what made you change your mind. You seemed to
support a merge when Michael first suggested it. I haven't seen any new
arguments here, just a different weighting given to them.
murrayc usa net
] [Thread Prev