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

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


Re-reading this, it is an exaggeration to say "entirely incompatible".
However, it is not binary compatible and there are always interface changes.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Jason
> Fischl
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 12:09 PM
> To: david Butcher; Alan Hawrylyshen
> Cc: resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
>