Is there a plan for qpid/cpp/bindings/qpid/dotnet? You seem to have missed that one.
I'd suggest that the dotnet binding should reside with the rest of the bindings despite its non-swig nature. The dotnet binding is tightly coupled to the cpp/src tree so moving the binding will involve changing directory specs in the project files and in the packaging scripts. -Chuck ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Darryl L. Pierce" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:59:59 AM > Subject: Relocating the language bindings... > > 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) > > 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). > > 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 were out of date.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? > > -- > Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc. > Delivering value year after year. > Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors. > http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
