Subject: Re: [ecasound] goodbye to dynamic libraries...?
From: Kai Vehmanen (kai.vehmanen_AT_wakkanet.fi)
Date: Tue Oct 08 2002 - 11:57:20 EEST
On 8 Oct 2002, Dennis J Houy wrote:
> I for one will be sad to see it go. I have been working on a graphical
> multi-track recording interface for quite some time, and after suffering
> many difficulties, decided to use ecasound as the base to work from, now
> this!
Ok, this is a new development. Can you give some details on how you are
using ecasound (ECI or libecasound, if the latter, which classes)?
> How is this going to affect me, and all the work I am doing? Do I need
> to look to something else?
Not necessarily much. Actually, if my plan succeeds and it becomes easier
for me to introduce and test new features, this change should be a
positive thing for all involved.
The critical question is how you depend on libecasound. What I want to get
rid of is maintaining binary-level compatibility for long periods of time.
With a big C++ library like libecasound, this requires just too much
effort. Maintaining source-level interfaces is much easier, and I need to
continue using strict change control for the API, as ecawave and
ecamegapedal depend on this.
As a summary, I'd like get rid of the "one year of ivory-tower development
-> testing&stabilization -> maintenance" cycle (as exemplified by the
2.1devX series), and instead release a new ecasound-x.y every time
a set of features is implemented and tested (time cycle in weeks or
months). To achieve this speed of development with the current development
model, I'd have to break the ABI all the time.
-- http://www.eca.cx Audio software for Linux!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Oct 08 2002 - 11:57:34 EEST