On 2 October 2017 at 09:30, Bas Couwenberg <sebas...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > On 2017-10-02 09:13, Mateusz Loskot wrote: >>> >>> As Bas said already it causes packagers headaches. >> >> So, the solution is to take the toys away from the kids... >> >> >> Please help us understand your point of view. Why do you want to keep >> the >> C++ API?
Added this back from Bas's comment as I think it's important. >> I like Sandros proposal to disable the C++ API by default and provide a >> configure option to (re-)enable it combined with the header to state that >> the developer has considered the downsides of using the C++ API. >> It seems to address you concerns too, it doesn't take away your toy, it just >> raises the barrier to using it because its a toy that can easily be used to >> hurt others. I'm willing to rewrite the RFC to that if all are in agreement. > Please, don't try to help me solve my problems. > Those are orthogonal to the matter discussed here. They are not orthogonal when your use is hurting me. At that point you've made your problem my problem and I need to solve yours to solve mine. > Since day one, GEOS was C++ library. Fullstop. Since Day One GEOS was created to serve PostGIS -- a C project. Sure it has expanded since, but it has expanded not just because it was a C++ library, but primarily because people found it useful to use. Now GEOS usefulness is at jeopardy because people are afraid to use it because when they need to upgrade, it breaks all their other software. Hey I hate Java, but I still use Jenkins CI because it serves my purposes. I wasn't out looking for a CI tool written in Java. Just because you see C++ as a defining feature of GEOS, doesn't mean all other projects that build on it feel the same way. Sure there are many that do, but we need to come to some comfortable middle ground. Thanks, Regina _______________________________________________ geos-devel mailing list geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
