< Previous by Date Date Index Next by Date >
< Previous in Thread Thread Index Next in Thread >

RE: [reSIProcate] A few upgrades to the API.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of david
> Butcher
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 11:30 AM
> To: Alan Hawrylyshen
> Cc: 'resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' resiprocate-devel
> Subject: Re: [reSIProcate] A few upgrades to the API.
>
>
> > 1) an API compatibility call that returns an integer (likely the
> > repository revision) of the library (V)
>
> Ok.
>
> > 2) an API compatibility call that returns an interger <= (V) that
> > indicates the cut-off point for behavioural
> >     or semantic compatibiliy.
>
> What does this mean? How does the API designate semantics?
> Example, please?

At the stage of development that resiprocate is at, do we really think this
is feasible? It seems to me that every release is entirely incompatible with
the previous one - at least for the time being. Hopefully this will change
in the next year or so.

>
> > 3) Some typedefs to the SdpContents class so clients don't have to have
> > code-awareness that the Foos are stored as a std::list vs a std::deque
> > etc.  Something like (and there will be many)
> >
> >     typedef std::list<Codec> CodecList;
> >
> > and then re-define all members that used to refer to std::list<Codec>
> > to CodecList. This increases the maintainability and lifetime of client
> > code considerably. Discuss again.
>
> I'm all for typedefs. Let's not get into the bathrobe and bullhorn thing
> again, though. Also, hiding type is not necessarily an improvement. Fine
> if all the caller can do is iterate. Seems to hinge on what we expect
> the caller to do with the datatype. Which mostly amounts to
> meta-discussion. I am not a heavy user of SdpContents, so will stop
> here.
>

So exactly what colour is your bathrobe anyways Alan :)

Jason