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 firstname.lastname@example.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers