Hi, sorry for not reacting earlier, which I feel obliged to as the maintainer of core and perl-bindings. On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 11:59:10AM +0200, Duncan Mac-Vicar Prett wrote:
On Wednesday 25 July 2007 11:41:42 Stefan Hundhammer wrote:
Having separate directories makes building and packaging a lot easier IMHO. You also don't need to install all kinds of other language development packages if you don't need a certain language. Also, different development tools (autotools vs. cmake) make it hard to keep everything in one directory, in particular since cmake builds out-of-source-tree and the autotools inside the source tree.
Yes, these are the main arguments against grouping: - different build dependencies - different build systems [1]
Yes, but also makes sharing code between the bindings impossible.
For example, if you want to generate bindings for the libraries, the swig stuff will be the same for ruby and python.
First of all, perl-bindings and python-bindings should really be named perl-bridge and python-bridge. (Hm, maybe I can still have them renamed before 10.3.) I understand the term "bindings" as an interface to *concrete* functions, as seen in yast2-storage for example. That is what SWIG does and where we could share code. But here we are building *generic* bridges to any function. From what I have seen, ruby has had some bindings too and now Duncan built a bridge. AFAIK, there is no code sharing between the bridges, so that is another argument for keeping them separate. [1]: perl-bindings additionally includes an interface between automake and Perl MakeMaker, but that is not really a complication -- Martin Vidner, not a bridge player ♣♦♥♠ http://en.opensuse.org/User:Mvidner Kuracke oddeleni v restauraci je jako fekalni oddeleni v bazenu -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: yast-devel+help@opensuse.org