Re: [AD] Prefixing (was: rest and yield_timeslice)

[Angelo Mottola <a.mottola@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> If we decide that Allegro is more or less in its final state, and we
> don't expect it to live on much longer, then I'd agree, we could just
> say we don't want prefixing and cleaning of the API. But if we want it
> to be developed in the future, I think it is absolutely necessary to 
> get
> away from the old DOS 320x200-mode API and clean it up gradually during
> 4.1.x. There's nothing stopping you from continuing to use 4.0.x. 4.0.4
> shouldn't have any major bugs anymore I think.
>
> And with the mentioned compatibility layer, there even will be minimal
> changes required to keep using the 4.0.x API. And also the changes for
> maintainers of old software to upgrade to 4.2 should be minimal.
>
> Personally, I actually wouldn't care to name the version with the
> prefixed symbols Allegro 5.0 o Allegro 7.0 or whatever - the name is
> much less important than the actual lib to me. But given the agreed on
> naming scheme, it should be 4.2.0, since there's no major changes, just
> prefixing and minor API cleaning.

Well said!

Actually, if it was just for me, I'd even go for a more radical 
approach, without worrying about compatibility layers... After all, 
4.0.x is and will be here for anyone to use.
What stops Allegro from being developed further is the fear to cut with 
the past (among other things). As Elias said, Allegro needs to change 
to reflect newer developer needs; let's face it, the DOS era ended a 
lot of time ago, and Allegro has struggled so far to be backward 
compatible. This forced compatibility has led gradually to bad API 
decisions, hacks and whatever was needed to ensure old DOS programs to 
compile on modern OSes. Actually, we were forcing developers 
(developing under modern OSes and not under DOS anymore) to think in 
DOS terms, in a world where now windowed environments, multitasking, 
OpenGL and hardware acceleration rule.

So I completely agree: Allegro has to evolve, and it's already late, so 
we'd better be quick. Let's leave fears behind; who wants to stick with 
the past can still stick with 4.0.x.
After we've all agreed we need to move on, I think we need a roadmap, 
as noone has posted one yet AFAIK. With some deadlines, maybe 
development will proceed at a faster peace... And if we also agree on 
cutting with the past, accepting even radical changes (heck, WIPs are 
Work In Progress versions, they're not meant to be stable or completely 
usable!), I think more developers will be happy to contribute.

Now that I think about it, I think the current Allegro situation 
resembles a bit the XFree86 development issues which led to the Xorg 
fork...

--
Angelo Mottola
a.mottola@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.ecplusplus.com