I think you misunderstood me a little

> The first and third statements in the second paragraph of your response is 
> false. 
> I have ever asked to "guarantee a stable C++ API at this point in time" or at 
> any point ever.
> It's a fact.
> [Regina Obe] 

I never said you wanted to guarantee a stable C++ API.  And we don't have one 
is my point.
Something that is unstable should not be shared.  It should be statically 
linked or set aside for your own project and as such you shouldn't expect 
package maintainers to carry your project.  

> The second statement in the second paragraph of your response is also false.
> GEOS users can and do depend on the C++ API.
> It's a fact. 
No disagreement there - just don't want packagers burdened with having to ship 
these projects and right now we have few if any that use the C++ API
that packagers need to ship.  I'd like to keep it that way by discouraging 
sharing of the C++ API.  Installing headers etc -- as pramsey suggested would 
just open up the flood-gates of C++ projects relying on the C++-API until we 
have some REALLY IMPORTANT C++ project that relies on GEOS that packagers would 
like to ship, and expecting them to statically link every GEOS use is insane 
and a security hole.

I care more about packagers feeling comfortable about shipping a newer GEOS 
C-API and PostGIS being able to use a newer GEOS C-API than I feel about making 
C++ developers happy. You people have all proven to be only concerned about 
your self-interest and your toys.

> The arguments you present show to me you're pursuing goals of a package 
> manager but not a programmer who wrote that code.

The way I see it Mat -- there are way more programmers than there are packagers 
on the GEOS / PostGIS teams, so YES I got to look out for the minority which 
has a major impact on the majority, because clearly no one else seems to.

> This brought incompatible toys in to the common sandbox.
What incompatible toys -- you still have your sandbox -- it's just a little 
more sandboxed.

> You do not want to recognize it.
I recognize it but I care much less about it than other things.  You're the one 
that turned in your keys to the GEOS project and said you didn't want to be 
part of it anymore.  I was extremely disappointed when you said that. So why 
this sudden new found interest?
> I'm not going to keep convincing you anymore.
Good cause we are in full agreement - we are just on opposite sides of the 


geos-devel mailing list

Reply via email to