On Thursday, January 16, 2014 12:00:36 Kevin Krammer wrote: > On Thursday, 2014-01-16, 01:33:34, Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > El Dimecres, 15 de gener de 2014, a les 21:47:17, John Layt va escriure:
> > > * Application domain-specific libraries such as libkipi or libkcddb > > > may now be better organised under Frameworks rather than their > > > modules, where they could gain a wider user base and a clearer > > > maintenance viability. Can we have a Frameworks category for non-api > > > stable libraries? > > > > I am not sure I would call it "Frameworks", but yes, that makes total > > sense, for example at the moment our mobipocket library just uses QtCore > > and QtGui but since it's using all the KDE cmake stuff it's not that easy > > to re-use "from the outside". > > I also think it is important to not call those "Frameworks", because it > dilutes the assumption we want developers to make about Frameworks, e.g. > stable, maintained, scheduled releases, etc. This is a very important point. We've had some discussions during the Plasma sprint (which I'm currently attending), and "make it a Framework" was offered as a solution to scope some libraries. While I think that should in principle be possible, separate libraries do not automatically become frameworks. The fact that they're split and less interdependent makes it easier to have a bigger set of libraries, but it's really important that we only ship libraries that satisfy a certain set of qualities, such as API and ABI stability, complete documentation, unit-testing, etc. Otherwise, our newly created "Frameworks brand" will quickly lose its meaning and value, and worse, devalue other, high-quality libraries' reputations. Strong requirements are a good thing here. -- sebas http://www.kde.org | http://vizZzion.org | GPG Key ID: 9119 0EF9 _______________________________________________ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community