Re: Binary compatability

[Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>]

Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.ping.de> writes:

> Yo,
> 
> what's the current word on binary backwards compatability in Gtk?

Binary compatibility in the 1.1 series is long gone.
 
> I have been away from the sources for a long time now and I want to
> work my way back in.  The first thing I have in mind is to clean up
> the object/type system and in the process make it fit for defining new
> Gtk classes from Scheme and other dynamic languages.

The main sticking point I know of is overriding the default handlers,
since those are raw function pointers. I'll be curious to see what
you come up with. (It is getting a bit late in the cycle for 1.2
to make major changes to the type system, but if they are fairly
straightforward.)
 
> I have no specific things in mind right now but I'd like to know if
> breaking binary compatability is a problem.  I think I can keep source
> compatability no matter what.

Source compatibility is nice. (We've had to break it in a few spots
in 1.1, but we've tried to keep such breakage to a minumum)

Regards,
                                        Owen