[wx-discuss] wxTNG: compatibility with wx2 API

[Kevin Ollivier]

Hi all,

On Feb 16, 2006, at 10:08 AM, Stefan Csomor wrote:

[snip]

>>  It's true that I mostly concentrate on new and better API
>> than on new and better features. And from the point of view
>> of new features wx2-on-wx3 does make more sense. But I think
>> we can find a compromise: work on wx3-on-wx2 but provide new
>> implementations of just some classes:
>
> the clean API can be done in wx3 whether it is above or below wx2. wx2
> on wx3 will allow to replace things step by step, have the new
> implementation tested immediately, having the option to switch back if
> we break things w/o having a good clue on how to solve them in short
> time. whereas wx3 on wx2 will be plagued by all the problems wx2 has,
> any effort to remedy them in wx2 will be either wasted or wx2 will  
> never
> be replaced at all. The latter is an option of course, but then it
> should be stated upfront, because replacing wx2 completely when it is
> sitting under wx3 is an even more herculean task, with the added
> disadvantage of leaving all wx2 code users in the dust ...

I think it would be a huge disadvantage to dump wx2, personally. If  
we could make improvements to wx2, even if it meant new versions of  
wx2 may not support all the compilers/platforms the current one does,  
I think it would be better for pretty much everyone. Just like we  
dropped official support for Classic and GTK1, the benefit of  
improvements and easier maintenance may very well outweigh continued  
support of userbases working with setups that can't be made to work  
with, for example, modern C++ code. They can always use existing  
versions, which are already very complete.

Thanks,

Kevin


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: wx-discuss-unsubscribe at lists.wxwidgets.org
For additional commands, e-mail: wx-discuss-help at lists.wxwidgets.org