On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 11:59 -0400, Darryl L. Pierce wrote: > Last week Ted and I talked about moving the language bindings out from > under the cpp directory tree. So, in the end, we'd have something like: > > qpid/ > cpp/ > bindings/ > qpid/ > perl/ > python/ > ruby/ > > (unless someone has a better suggestion)
I think this is a fine tree layout. > > Also, during a discussion today with Justin we talked about versioning > the generated language bindings from SWIG in those bindings directory. I > have mixed feelings on this, but also wanted to solicit opinions on > doing this. > > The big benefit to this would be breaking the Cmake dependencies between > the bindings and the cpp build tree. We could build them independently, > which is a Good Thing (tm). I don't think you are really breaking any dependencies by moving code around are you? The bindings will still depend on the c++ code where ever it lives in the tree. Doing this will certainly as you say below make it easier to enforce API compatibility. But it will now require a top level make arrangement to ensure that the cpp libs (or at least the necessary ones) get built before the bindings do. Not that I object to this -it's just another layer of work to be done. > > The downside, though, is when the public APIs change and the SWIG > bindings aren't updated. Though we'd find out pretty quickly that they > were out of date. > > Opinions? Thoughts? > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
