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 opinion?
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 missing.
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 into internals.
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. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org