Re: [gtkmm] porting projects from gtkmm-1.2 to gtkmm2

[murrayc t-online de (Murray Cumming)]

On Mon, 2003-01-13 at 20:30, Leandro Fanzone wrote:
> Well, in fact it wasn't even reasonable to us to reimplement CList in
> gtkmm2. If TreeView was ought to be the new standard, there's no point
> on lagging behind. Our complain in that moment was such an important
> API breakage for a rather big project implies a lot of time, and many
> people here pointed that we should move to a more stable (in terms of
> API) development environment. At this point, I think it has more to do
> with gtk+ than with gtkmm, of course. At any rate, we stuck with
> gtkmm.

That doesn't make much sense to me. If you wanted API stability then you
could just stay with API-stable gtkmm 1.2. Nothing forces you to use
gtkmm 2. I can't see why the existence of gtkmm2 would make you want to
stop using gtkmm 1.2.

That's why we have clearly defined periods of API development and
stability, always with one generation of the API which is stable while
the other is in development. It's the best of both worlds.

I suspect you were really thinking "We feel like updating to a newer API
so let's choose which new API to use.". That suggests that you were
ready to do some work anyway.

-- 
Murray Cumming
murray usa net
www.murrayc.com