[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: 0.32, the "1.0" milestone, and the 1.0 release.

From: Barry Scott <barry_at_barrys-emacs.org>
Date: 2003-10-05 12:45:09 CEST

At 04-10-2003 14:17, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>Barry Scott <barry@barrys-emacs.org> writes:
> > I'm just checked to see what the state of Python API was in the issues.
> > There is one issue 1451. Is it still you're intention to ship 1.0
> > without a scripting API that works? In my world this is a gating
> > factor for adoption of subversion. I'm not trying to change your
> > mind on release criteria, I just want to know when this will be
> > important enough to make work. Then I can plan what I do accordingly.

>While I think the scripting language is important, I disagree on your
>assertion that it needs to be perfected for 1.0. In my mind,

I never asserted that. I asked for confirmation. You have confirmed that
1.1 is what I will need to wait for. I'll help how I can towards 1.1 for
the bindings.

>Subversion 1.0 is about providing the tools and backing libraries to
>give folks a real excuse to leave their crummy old CVS behind and
>never look back. We will do this.
>I *would*, however, like to see our bindings shaped up -- with
>dedicated maintainers for each supported language -- by Subversion
>1.1. And that means (IMO) a few things:
> - consolidation of effort: SWIG is a great tool that can go the
> distance if we can take the time to tune the interface files. It
> bothers me that I can't talk about "the Java bindings" without
> having to state which one I'm talking about.
> - consolidation of design: while SWIG can do the gruntwork of
> wrapping C APIs, there is a level of language-friendly work that
> needs to be designed on top of the SWIG output. Ideally, these
> efforts would also be coordinated across the languages, with
> specific design goals that are shared by them all.
>The best binding set I've ever seen is that for the wxWindows library.
>The documentation for all the bindings languages is so similar that
>it's all in one doc-set, with little footnotes for language-specific
>exceptions where they happen. And it's all SWIG + an extra layer,
>unless I'm mistaken. *That's* what I want to see for Subversion.

wxPython is very good. We build all our GUI tools using it at work.

There is very little in the extra layer. 99% of the .py is generated
out of SWIG (that begs the question of what they do in the .i files).
They do the prefix striping.

wxPython has a simpler job as wxWndows is OO so they have the object
model. The design work for SVN is in creating that object model and
implementing it out of the C binding. Once there is an object model it
will be easy enough to implement in all the languages. Maybe SWIGing
the C++ binding for SVN that RapidSVN(?) has is a better approach?


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Oct 5 12:46:03 2003

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.