Subject: Re: [boost] GGL Extensions
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-11 18:40:50
Christian Henning wrote:
>>> I'm not sure that the extensions proposal worked very well for
>>> GIL. I'm not sure why.
>> This is interesting. Perhaps GIL maintainers could share their
> I have been developing some gil extensions myself and I find it very
> straightforward. I also try to keep all gil extension in my
> repository ( see here: http://code.google.com/p/gil-contributions/ ).
> Quite a few people have been contributed when gil was released but
> since then interest went downwards. My opinion is that gil might be
> to hard to understand and there is a lot of basic functionality
Yes, I have noticed GIL feels complex myself too.
I've been playing with GGL since last April/May and I understand
well the learning curve is very steep if one wants to dig deeper
> Let's consider the first type since it intervenes with gil source
> code much more closely. Have a look at: [...] To have a healthy
> developer base one has to the lead and do the necessary maintenance.
Very good point.
> For a user to have to go to two places to get the wanted
> functionality is quite a show stopper.
I have similar impression that it can be indeed.
To me, GIL organisation seems to be similar to GGL and perhaps GIL
followed by GGL will state some sort of example of how to arrange
extensions sup[port effectively.
Christian, thanks for sharing your experiences.
-- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org