[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: QT 3.0 and future KDR Road Map
From:       Patrick Julien <freak () codepimps ! org>
Date:       2001-05-25 12:07:38
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thursday 24 May 2001 22:55, Jeff brubaker wrote:
>   What type of binary compatibility exists right now between kde 1.x and
> kde 2.x? Is binary compatibility able to be preserved by having
> compatibility libraries between these versions?
>
>   In windows binary compatibility has only been broken once. When
> Microsoft moved from Win16 to Win32, and even after there was a
> compatibility layer which still enabled these applications to run.

This is not true.  An application written with MFC version x will not run 
with version y.  

Why do you think there are some many Visual Basic runtime dll on some systems 
(vbrun300.dll, vbrun400.dll, vbrun500.dll, etc.)?  They are not binary 
compatible.  

Why are they so many Win32 applications that keep a set of DLL in there 
install directory when those same DLL's are available in different system 
directories?  Again this is because of binary compatibility.

It gets even worse when you're writting for different versions of Windows, 
for example you might want to tweak an undocumented setting in the registry 
for your program, a function is available for NT/98 but not for 95, so you 
start playing tricks and load libraries manually and use the equivalent of 
dlopen() and friends to call the NT/98 function but still be able to run and 
edit the registry manually with 95.

>
> Is long term binary compatibility not a major goal for kde?
>
>  On Wed, 23 May 2001 danielmo@xena.tops.net wrote:
> > Hi Christoph!
> >
> > On Wed, 23 May 2001, Christoph Cullmann wrote:
> > > Why don't make a 2.3 based on completly based on qt 3 ? Would be a nice
> > > test for qt3 and from 2.3 to 3.0 we only must rework on kde stuff, not
> > > rework kde and port it to qt3 at once.
> >
> > Please not! We should really keep up our stratigy:
> >
> > Major version == BIC
> > Minor versions == BC is kept
> >
> > I know that _many_ people would like to switch to Qt3 ASAP
> > (that includes me, too) but if you want to develop with Qt3,
> > we should have a KDE3 branch, which I would suggest to introduce
> > by the time when KDE 2.3 is out (around fall/winter 2001). Then
> > we would have our common 2.3.1 fix branch and HEAD would be open
> > to KDE3 development.
> >
> > This solution would make it easy for the user to recognize potential
> > compatiblility problems w/ his KDE version and his K Applications.
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > </daniel>
> >
> > >> Visit http://master.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to
> > >> unsubscribe <<
> >>
> >> Visit http://master.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to
> >> unsubscribe <<
 
>> Visit http://master.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]