On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Marc Andre Tanner wrote:
>>> Why do you think this one is better? It clutters the source with more
>>> #ifdef's and if you add a new function you will have to remember to
>>> add the check for BUILD_ECORE_CON.
>>
>> because you removed API functions, which must exist, ecore_
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:57:51AM +0200, Vincent Torri wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Marc Andre Tanner wrote:
>
> >On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 11:43:50PM +0200, Vincent Torri wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, Marc Andre Tanner wrote:
> >>
> >>>This makes ecore-file useable without ecore
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Marc Andre Tanner wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 11:43:50PM +0200, Vincent Torri wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, Marc Andre Tanner wrote:
>>
>>> This makes ecore-file useable without ecore-con.
>>
>> better one : http://pastebin.ca/1613582
>
> Why do you think this on
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 11:43:50PM +0200, Vincent Torri wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, Marc Andre Tanner wrote:
>
> >This makes ecore-file useable without ecore-con.
>
> better one : http://pastebin.ca/1613582
Why do you think this one is better? It clutters the source with more
#ifdef's an
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, Marc Andre Tanner wrote:
> This makes ecore-file useable without ecore-con.
better one : http://pastebin.ca/1613582
is it working for you ?
Vincent
>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Andre Tanner
> ---
> src/lib/ecore_file/ecore_file_download.c | 16
> 1 files ch
This makes ecore-file useable without ecore-con.
Signed-off-by: Marc Andre Tanner
---
src/lib/ecore_file/ecore_file_download.c | 16
1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/lib/ecore_file/ecore_file_download.c
b/src/lib/ecore_file/ecore_file_downlo
