Re: gep-1

On Mon, 2002-08-26 at 12:24, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> 	Conclusion:
> 	o Resurrect the idl compilers language module loader (this
> 	  isn't hard, and I'd be more than happy to do it), merge
> 	  the branch into HEAD with the c++ bits disabled by default
> 	  and package the binding seperately from the core.

Let me see if I understand you:
1. You want to put the C++ binding into the core, as originally planned?
2. But you want to create a separate bindings API or library ("language
module loader") rather than having the C++ stuff include/link with the C
code directly?
3. You want ORBit2 to not build the C++ by default.

Ignore the following if that was wrong:

a) If you're going to properly separate them (2) then why merge them too
(1)? You will never really know that they are using only this language
module loader interface unless you separate them.

b) Didn't someone have a good reason for removing that language module
loaders thing when they started ORBit2?

c) I am against conditional compilation. Only the default build will be
packaged as RPM as debs, so people won't actually have access to the C++
stuff. I don't have enough confidence that package builders will be able
to cope with this situation. We need a good reason to make our lives
this difficult. You seem to have a non-specific fear of the merge, but
it's hard to justify that given that the branch is there and working and
people are running GNOME2 with it.
> 	Notice that like Michael, I don't sound convinced either way -
> this is just the best I can come up with :-)

In the absence of strong arguments, I would choose to stick with the
plan that we have. It already has working code which demonstrates that
it poses no threat to ORBit2.

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.

Murray Cumming

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]