> Providing stable-ish ABIs seems like something libraries often do, so
> I tried to plan that in to Broker. Don’t know if I did that well, or
> there’s better strategies to use, or I was the only one worried about
> that to begin with, but thought I’d mention it just in case it wasn’t
> even on your radar.
Indeed, it wasn't on my radar that you employed PIMPL to achieve ABI
compatibility.
At this point, I'm inclined to move towards a more light-weight model
that is less robust against ABI changes. I believe we still need more
experience with the API. Once the API matures, hiding central
implementation aspects to increase ABI stability becomes the next
priority to improve medium- to long-term release compatibility.
Does that sound reasonable?
Matthias
_______________________________________________
bro-dev mailing list
bro-dev@bro.org
http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
