Hi Steve,
Steve Dwire wrote:
>(Take 4. First 3 attempts didn't show up. Sorry if this is a duplicate.)
>
>I brought up this idea a while back, and one person seemed to think it
>was a good idea, but I wanted to solicit others' ideas before adding
>this as an official task in the issue tracker.
>
>It looks like there are attempts in different binding layers to define
>an OO interface on top of the subversion API.
>
>o First, there was svn_cpp, part of RapidSVN
>
>
>o Next was the OO Python bindings, based on svn_cpp
>
>
Do not forget the javahl bindings,which were inspired by svn_cpp.
>o Today a discussion was started about OO Perl bindings.
>o When I brought up COM, someone suggested basing the
> hierarchy on svn_cpp
>
>My question is this: Is it within the scope of the subversion product
>itself to define what an class hierarchy should look like for an OO
>binding? I'm not suggesting that it's the responsibility of the
>Subversion project to actually *implement* any of those wrappers, or
>necessarily *include* them in an official distribution (though that
>would be nice). I just believe that for consistency's sake, there ought
>to be a single, official class hierarchy and API definition for any OO
>bindings that come down the pike. The subversion team would be
>responsible for defining and documenting the classes and their
>hierarchy/properties/methods, but not necessarily for implementing them
>in any particular language.
>
>What's the collective opinion? Should we add a TASK issue (Post-1.0,
>probably) to define an official OO API structure?
>
>S_E_D
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
>
>
Patrick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Dec 19 07:16:37 2003