I am in full agreement. Two libs with the same API would probably best. Sent from my iPhone
On 14 aug. 2011, at 12:24, Joep Suijs <[email protected]> wrote: > We've seen this pattern more lately. Libraries that exist for quite > some time, proven to be reliable and frequently used (especially by > the author) for some reason need to be changed. I don't see any real > arguments - and definitely not a real problem someone ran into - but > do see reluctance of the original author. I experience this myself > with the delay-library which seems not to measure up to new standards. > The thing is it works for me. It probably does for most people. As a > matter of fact: I can't think of a real, common reason why one needs > to use an other timer. In addition to this, it is simple, it is > well-tested and has a small footprint. Changing this would mean I > need to update and retest over a dozen apps before I can start on an > new version. Wasted effort, probably required at some point in time it > is inconvenient. > > So, when are libraries to be changed (opposed to new ones created, > like ADC and like PRINT adding to the old FORMAT)? And how can a > proper working situation be guaranteed while the refactoring is in > progress? And - maybe most important - what if the original author > objects? > Maybe we should leave the libraries as is when the original author > does not agree and create a new library. At some point the (a) > benevolent dictator can decide to remove the old lib from the > distribution if multiple libraries become a burden. > > Joep > > > 2011/8/12 Sebastien Lelong <[email protected]>: >> I second Matt (just in case there were any doubts :)) >> Cheers, >> Seb >> >> 2011/8/12 mattschinkel <[email protected]> >>> >>> I can keep API the same, except for the include block. Please allow >>> updates to old files to match the up to date files. There is no need >>> to have 10 of the same library. >>> >>> Albert Faber has already done an update, I see his name as Adapted-by. >>> >>> Matt. >>> >>> On Aug 12, 5:07 am, Eur van Andel <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>> On 12 aug. 2011, at 07:52, vasile surducan <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Why don't you let the TC77 as is and create a TC77-SPI >>>>> compatible Jallib library instead? >>>> >>>> Indeed. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "jallib" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sébastien Lelong >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "jallib" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "jallib" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
