Re: [pygccxml-development] Future of pypp_api...

[Allen B. <al...@vr...>]

Roman Yakovenko wrote:

> On 8/19/06, Allen Bierbaum <al...@vr...> wrote:
>
>> What are the future plans of the pypp_api?
>>
>> I am in a very frustrating position because I am very happy with the
>> capabilities and code generation abilities of pyplusplus, I have ported
>> all my projects over to using it and am actively promoting it to
>> others.  But I am not at all happy with the pyplusplus builder
>> interface.  I have become frustrated enough with the pyplusplus builder
>> API that I am starting to port my generation scripts over to using the
>> pypp_api.  This API is definitely designed to be much more of a user API
>> that just allows people to get work done.  I would highly suggest that
>> anyone that wants to use pyplusplus to create bindings should be using
>> this API.  It is simple and direct.  I am willing and interested in
>> contributing more to it, but first I wanted to make sure it is going to
>> continue to exist.
>
>
> 1. It is an open source project with very open license

Agreed.  This isn't an issue though.  The question comes down to one of 
will people be using and supporting the pypp_api or are the module 
builder interface and the classes of pyplusplus going to be promoted as 
the user-level API.

>
> 2. I would like to get a list what you think is really bad in current
> API and what
>    is really good with pypp_api.

We have discussed it before, but the goals for pypp_api really sum it up 
well for me. 

https://realityforge.vrsource.org/view/PyppApi/PyppGoals

As you have said, your vision for pyplusplus is to be an API for writing 
code generators.  That is a fine goal, but what I want to use and what I 
want to provide for users is a domain specific language that makes it 
easy to create bindings.

>> I have already run into
>> cases where changes to pyplusplus have broken my generation scripts and
>> that is when I was using the pyplusplus builder API.
>
>
> In most case, when I break API I have good reason. What is your case,
> may be this
> is a bug?

I don't think it is a bug, it is just a changing API.

-Allen