From: Daniel M. German <dmgerman@uv...> - 2006-06-27 15:37:36
lode> how about creating a new library (eg libpano)
lode> and providing a libary libpano12 that implements
lode> the old interface, by calling the new one?
I don't think this is a good idea, because pano12 needs to be binary
The only reason to maintain pano12 is for people who want to run the
old Helmut's binaries.
Daniel M. German "We die. That may be the meaning of life.
But we do language. That may be
Toni Morrison -> the measure of our lives."
dmg (at) uvic (dot) ca
replace (at) with @ and (dot) with .
From: Jim Watters <jwatters@ph...> - 2006-06-27 16:11:15
On Tue, June 27, 2006 11:29 am, lode leroy said:
> how about creating a new library (eg libpano)
> and providing a libary libpano12 that implements
> the old interface, by calling the new one?
Most of the work is done to impliment something like this. We would need to pass on the
correct version info and capabilities. Some programs check version info or capabilities
to see what is avalible. We don't want to pass on stuff that pano12 can not do but
pano13 can. But we do want to pass on new stuff that a wraper libraty can handle.
I used something like this to understand how PTStitcher worked.
This would *not* fix the issue with the change in structure size.
Better to keep pano12 the way it is.
Yahoo ID: j1vvy ymsgr:sendIM?j1vvy
jwatters @ photocreations . ca