Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Sunday, January 2, 2005 1:12 PM +0000 Max Bowsher <maxb@ukf.net>
> wrote:
>
>> They haven't been modified in a long time - since before the branching of
>> 1.1.x - have they gone the way of the ruby and com bindings, and should
>> be removed?
>
> I think they should be kept: I think dlr updates them when he gets a
> chance. At the last I heard, he said they were functional for whatever
> he's using them for...
OK. They seem to be *very* incomplete, but perhaps they are useable for
certain limited purposes.
If they still haven't been touched when we get close to branching 1.3.x,
then let's re-open the possibility of dropping them.
For the purposes of resolving issue 2168, I will describe them as "very
alpha".
>> If they are still alive, then I'd like to tidy up the swig .i files. At
>> the moment, java and python/perl sections are randomly intermixed. For
>> python/perl, this is good, since the structure of the two languages
>> typemaps is almost identical. Java seems to use a completely different
>> kind of typemap, so I think it would be better for either the files to
>> rearrange into seperate contiguous sections for Py/Pl and Java, or to
>> move the Java typemaps into a seperate set of files.
>
> I would say that you should have at it as you see fit. When dlr gets
> around to it, he can pick up the pieces. =) -- justin
Having spent a good few revisions tidying up the swig bindings, and gaining
a better understanding of them, I no longer feel that Java needs to be
seperated - I realize now I was just picking on the most obvious example of
the general messiness over all the languages that I've been tidying up.
Max.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jan 4 00:59:21 2005