On Friday, 06 July 2018 15:07:28 CEST Eric Schott wrote:
> Thomas Jarosch had issues with the patch because "it might cause
> breakage for existing users of the lib."
>
> Since my user set, while of a moderate size, is rather contained, I
> implemented a "patched" libftd1 which had correct functionality.
> Of course, the code compiled against my patch will not work with a
> distribution supplied libftdi1.
>
> At this point, I feel it would be beneficial to create a correctly
> working library with an incremented major number with that fix.
> At the same time, I recommend implementing API changes to minimize
> breakage of user code with future versions (e.g., using a PIMPL
> idiom for the context structure).
breaking existing apps is still my main concern.
What could work: Implement a new API function with the correct behavior
and keep the old one around. Existing applications continue to work
and we could put a big fat warning in the code to use the new API.
Cheers,
Thomas
--
libftdi - see http://www.intra2net.com/en/developer/libftdi for details.
To unsubscribe send a mail to libftdi+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
