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

[Matthias B. <ba...@ir...>]

Allen Bierbaum wrote:
> Matthias:  Do you think development will continue on this API or do you 
> only need it for a single project?

Currently, I'm only using it for one project. But that doesn't mean that 
I don't want to continue with pypp_api, it's rather the opposite, as 
long as I'm using it I'm definitely interested in keeping it up-to-date 
and even improving it.
As the documentation and feature set of the official Py++ API evolves, 
I'll check from time to time if it would allow me to create the bindings 
just as easily, but as I'm rather pleased with pypp_api and the Py++ API 
doesn't have all the features of pypp_api yet it seems that I will stick 
with pypp_api for another a while.

> 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.  Is this just going 
> to get worse if I use pypp_api?

I don't think so. So far, whenever there have been API changes in py++ 
that broke something, they broke something in pypp_api and not in my 
main driver script. So in those cases we only have to fix pypp_api and 
all projects using it will continue to work.

Roman Yakovenko wrote:
>>> 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.
> 
> What is it?
> 
> Allen, please I need details without details this discussion is
> meaningless. Sorry.

The last modification that broke pypp_api was the transfer of the 
"write_main" parameter from multiple_files_t.write() to the constructor.
We already had a few similar changes before.
Then, I think it was the call policy objects that have been moved to a 
different module so that they had to be imported from somewhere else.
And so on...
Well, these changes are no big deal (especially as py++ still hasn't 
reached v1.0) and for me, all those modifications were "shielded" by 
pypp_api and I never had to update my main script so far, so I don't 
really complain about this... (but as you were asking)... ;)
But I think it's also a requirement for a high-level API that it remains 
relatively stable and protects the user from noticing internal interface 
modifications.

- Matthias -