On Fri, May 17, 2019, 8:53 AM Regina Obe <l...@pcorp.us> wrote: > > 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...
How so? Shared libraries are versioned. If you're not rebuilding against a new API, the soname should guarantee usability. 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. > Why are you doing this? If you want to significantly change the interface, why not make a new one in a new namespace, for example? This would preserve backward compatibility for existing users. This really strikes me as a design issue, rather than one of packaging.
_______________________________________________ geos-devel mailing list geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
