Joerg Hessdoerfer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sunday 20 February 2005 19:29, Barry Scott wrote:
>> You might find pysvn easier to use the the swig bindings.
>> They cannot cause a segv and are documented.
>>
>> http://pysvn.tigris.org/
>>
>> Barry
> [...]
>
> thanks for the suggestion, but I'd rather stick to the originals, because
> I'm
> not convinced all functionality is and will be in second-source bindings.
> Is
> there any reason the pysvn code doesn't use the SWIG bindings internally?
> In
> this way one could more easily customize them or add missing features.
> Additionally, that's just another package to install, another shared lib
> and
> thus another can of worms.
>
> I may be somewhat biased here, but I can't really make out any sense in
> 'alternative' binding implementations. If the 'originals' are buggy, try
> to
> fix it. If they don't expose all functionality, add it. If they are clumsy
> to
> use, add a wrapper.
I agree with the sentiment, though I can take a pretty good guess at why
pysvn exists as it is: SWIG is nastily complex to learn.
PySVN wraps much less of the API than the SWIG-Python bindings do, but does
it in a higher level (and documented) way - it's all about tradeoffs,
really.
Max.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Feb 20 21:32:19 2005