On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 15:30 -0500, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> > The new libeutil will include APIs that are currently scattered
> across:
> > 
> >    a11y/libevolution-a11y.so
> >    e-util/libeutil.so
> >    filter/libfilter.so
> >    widgets/e-timezone-dialog/libetimezonedialog.so
> >    widgets/editor/libeeditor.so  (new in Dan's branch)
> >    widgets/menus/libmenus.so
> >    widgets/table/libetable.so
> >    widgets/text/libetext.so
> >    libedataserverui/libedataserverui.so (from E-D-S)
> Addendum: Forgot to list an obvious and important one:
>    widgets/misc/libemiscwidgets.so

On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 14:45 -0500, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-12-09 at 08:59 -0500, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> > I expect this is a couple days worth of "monkey work", but I should have
> > it done by mid-week in time for the 3.7.3 release.
> Just committed this to master.

I didn't understand from the initial announcement that you'll not only
merge those above in one .so, but that you'll also move all the files
into one folder. This makes it quite messy to find anything, the
previous file layout was better from my point of view. I guess making 
as static libraries, linked into one libeutil.so would work pretty well
too, with an advantage of sorted code.

It's similar like with imapx files in eds. I didn't see any issue with
them being part of eds/camel, instead of eds/camel/providers/imapx, but
after some time of usage I realized that it's quite unfortunate,
especially when you want to find something in imapx code. Before the
file movement I was able to go to eds/camel/provides/imapx and search
only imapx related files for my search term, but now I search *whole*
camel, which gives me too much noise.

Maybe we cannot do anything with imapx anymore, but we still can with
eutil, or not?

Just my opinion.

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

Reply via email to