Re: A GNOME Bindings release set?

On 25/11/2003 3:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:

>Mike Kestner wrote:
>  
>
>>On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 04:40, [email protected] wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>That does not include non-developer platform API such as 
>>>libgnomeprint, or libgda. It's great if you wrap those, but 
>>>      
>>>
>>it needs 
>>    
>>
>>>to be done separately. So if you currently bundle lots of stuff 
>>>together in one package, you need to put the extra stuff in 
>>>      
>>>
>>a separate 
>>    
>>
>>>package.
>>>      
>>>
>>Why?  I don't understand why we would need to force people to 
>>fragment their bindings.  Can you explain the reasoning 
>>behind this requirement?
>>    
>>
>
>So that people can more clearly identify what is a binding for the GNOME
>developer platform, and so that we can more clearly identify whether they
>are following the API/ABI rules. Modularity is good.
>
>The number of tarballs used to distribute the source code of a binding
>should have very little effect on developers. I encourage people to
>encourage people to create umbrella packages on distros to make it easier
>for people to get their bindings.
>  
>
I would have to agree with Mike here.  How exactly does the inclusion of 
gnome-print binding in the same tarball as other gnome developer 
platform bindings make a difference?

If Mike's C# bindings are anything like the Python ones, then the 
gnome-print bindings would be exposed to the programmer as a separate 
module, so they would know if they were using gnome-print or not.  
Surely it is fairly obvious that no part of a language binding is any 
more stable than the library it wraps.

I am sure that GTK# and gnome-python would not be the only bindings 
inconvenienced by this sort of (unnecessary) requirement.

James.

-- 
Email: [email protected]
WWW:   http://www.daa.com.au/~james/



_______________________________________________
language-bindings mailing list  [email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/language-bindings