On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Chad Perrin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 06:50:22PM +0100, Stephan Beal wrote: > ... > > Search the archives for this group for many very long threads on this > > topic. Management Summary: it can't be done without what amounts to a > > complete rewrite, which would be a huge amount of work requiring a good > > deal of knowledge of how fossil works internally. > > Okay, but . . . what about just a general C or Ruby API? > My point was: there isn't one, and won't be one until someone volunteers for the task (and manages to pull it off). Fossil is implemented as a monolithic application, not an app on top of a library, and internally it is not at all set up to be run "like a library." Yes, we would all (or almost all) like to see it be refactored as a lib/app combination, but it would require a huge effort, far beyond what any of the current contributors can commit to. -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
