API Review anyone?

[Hugo Parente Lima]

On Sunday 22 November 2009 22:10:27 David Nolden wrote:
> Am Montag 23 November 2009 00:15:30 schrieb Andreas Pakulat:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm wondering wether anybody else is willing/interested in doing a bit
> > of API review on our public API in
> > kdevplatform/(interfaces,project,language,shell,util,vcs,outputview).
> > I've noticed some minor things which I'll try to "just fix" (like
> > missing Private-classes and private member functions).
> >
> > But there might also be public API that "doesn't make any sense" or
> > seems questionable. Obviously I can't decide on those things just alone,
> > but if nobody else is interested I'll just do the technical fixup and
> > keep the API review for a later release.
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> > PS: We're guaranteeing ABI for the 1.0/4.0 release, that is all
> > patch-releases will need to be BC, however we can break BC with 1.1/4.1
> > if we want/need to.
> 
> I think we just shouldn't care about that stuff for the 4.0 release, as we
> will have enough to do with making KDevelop stable and usable.
> 
> And about ABI, I actually think that, given the current state of KDevelop
>  in the 'ecosystem', the whole ABI compatibility stuff like d-pointers is
>  overengineering. Honesty, I've grown to hate d-pointers, like I hate any
>  other unnecessary layer of indirection that makes it harder to write and
>  understand code. We should care about these issues only once they really
>  start being relevant.
> 
> Greetings, David

I agree with David, take care about BC is *always* a pain, if you can avoid 
it, just avoid it!

There aren't unknown kdevplatform users or plugin developers until now (I 
guess), IMO you guys can start to worry about BC just when third party 
developers start to develop plugins for kdevelop/kdevplatform. The kdevelop 
team is too small to get another huge responsibility like that. On the other 
hand, off course you don't need to absolutely forget about BC issues, because 
one day this will be necessary, so, IMO, you guys, just don't need to make any 
promises about BC, at least not yet while.

Btw, API review is always a good thing, maybe you would post this request on 
kde-core-devel, someone external to the kdevelop team could look at the API 
with another point of view and give some nice feedback about it
 
> --
> KDevelop-devel mailing list
> KDevelop-devel at kdevelop.org
> https://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinfo/kdevelop-devel
> 

-- 
Hugo Parente Lima
"Precisamos de mais gênios humildes no mundo, hoje somos poucos!"
JID: hugo at jabber.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kdevelop-devel/attachments/20091123/e2562f2c/attachment.sig>