> On 5/17/19 3:23 PM, Andrew Bell wrote:
> > Frequent, breaking API changes seem a problem. ABI changes seem more
> > like a small annoyance. I can understand how a stable ABI would be
> > nice, but I personally don't think it's more important than a good
> > interface for library users.
> And that's the difference in perspective between a developer and distribution
> packager.
> Kind Regards,
> Bas
> --
>  GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1
> Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146  50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1
[Regina Obe] 
Exactly.  These days my sensitivities like more on the packaging side than the 
development side.
If GEOS was a fledgling project I would be fine with broadcasting yeh we have a 
public C++ API.

The thing is you can still use the C++API, we are just making it clear that you 
are on your own, which mloskot claims C++ developers know already.

Well guess what? the users/developers downstream of some project that depends 
on GEOS may not know that, and then they'll be screwed when we change the API.
So the notice lets them know they are trusting something they shouldn't if they 
try to use the C++ API directly.

Right now the C++ API I feel is more in flux than ever, so the last thing I 
want is people relying on it especially now while we are making major changes 
to it.
If you are building your pet C++ project that no one else is going to use, we 
are not stopping you from taking full advantage of the GEOS C++ API, but at 
your own risk.  If you expect package managers to package your software, then 
you gotta make it easier for us.


geos-devel mailing list

Reply via email to