On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 21:16 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> Agreed, the library dependency issue is a problem. That could be solved
> by an utility library on top of libecal and libebook which offers the
> unified API.

Or you could just write your own function in EvolutionSync.  It's just a
switch statement on an enum value.

> What about merging libebook and libecal into one shared library instead?
> Evolution 3.2 will require an soname bump and source code changes in
> apps anyway, throwing a renaming of libs into the mix won't make a big
> difference.
> I think it would make the overall API a lot cleaner, albeit with
> slightly (?) higher memory footprint for apps which only need one or the
> other.

I'll have to think on that.  Seems kinda drastic, but maybe I'm just not
seeing how it would make the overall API cleaner.

evolution-hackers mailing list
To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ...

Reply via email to