<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Luís Oliveira wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:391f79580908220824m60da7e37k7b53dc9eaedad5a8@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">That of course is a more general problem that should be solved with
something like this: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://paste.lisp.org/display/45282"><http://paste.lisp.org/display/45282></a>.
I have seen plenty of people taking advantage of the fact that
CFFI-UFFI-COMPAT can easily be used as a drop-in replacement for UFFI.
I have never seen anyone trying to use CFFI-UFFI-COMPAT and UFFI
simultaneously and I strongly suspect you don't actually have that
need either.
If for some reason you do need that, it's fairly straightforward to
use RENAME-PACKAGE to remove CFFI-UFFI-COMPAT's UFFI nickname.
</pre>
</blockquote>
You are absolutely right - I don't have that need. And so far as I
know, elephant doesn't either, but I haven't dug into their code. I'm
just trying to install it to evaluate it. And I have many packages
installed already that use the CFFI-UFFI-COMPAT capability. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:391f79580908220824m60da7e37k7b53dc9eaedad5a8@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Both UFFI and CFFI have a right to exist. The gcc analogy isn't valid -
these aren't compilers that users expect to be substituting one for another.
It doesn't matter that the CFFI people don't like the style of code writing
that goes on in the ELEPHANT group.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
By "the CFFI people" I presume you mean me, since the other CFFI
developers haven't joined the discussion. I never said I didn't their
code style.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Sorry, if I offended you - I didn't mean to offend anybody. I am new to
this list and don't know who the developers are. I used the term "CFFI
people" as a general term to refer to whoever it was on the list who
was criticizing the elephant code rather than deal with the problem
which I believe was created here by a using the uffi.asd name which was
bound to lead to confusion in installations. I think if you asked any
randomly 100 selected users _not_ involved in either of these groups,
98 of them would side with me on this. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:391f79580908220824m60da7e37k7b53dc9eaedad5a8@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">They chose to use UFFI for whatever
reason and should have the right to expect that some other development group
won't break their code via the ASDF package system unless there is a
dependency relationship.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
How are we breaking their code? Just don't use CFFI-UFFI-COMPAT. If I
just rename the system, Elephant/clbuild won't work either. That was
my first concern.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I don't understand this comment. Please explain. Elephant isn't trying
to use it. It depends on UFFI which wants to see uffi.asd in
asdf:*central-registry*. But when it goes there, it gets diverted to
your version which breaks it. <br>
<br>
Yet, I have other codes - many - which use CFFI, so I don't want to
remove that. Its a great package. What does that have to do with
clbuild?<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:391f79580908220824m60da7e37k7b53dc9eaedad5a8@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Since UFFI came up with the name first, I believe most people would agree
they have a prior right to the name.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Nobody is arguing that.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I think you should change the name of your file to uffi-cffi-compat.asd
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Like I said, I have no problem with that and I agree that it's the
best way in principle. However, I have a couple of concerns that I've
mentioned in my previous email which you decided to ignore and instead
paint this as some personal conflict between the UFFI and CFFI
developers. That was unfortunate.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Sorry, I'm not trying to paint a conflict, and certainly nothing of a
personal nature. I'm just trying to get this resolved in what I think
is the right way. I can't see anyway to resolve that doesn't involve
some pain somewhere. I'm trying to take the long view, and in my
opinion, the long view should be to improve the utility of Common Lisp,
not UFFI or CFFI. <br>
<br>
I don't see how you can argue that anyone should be able to set up a
package so that when using common automated methods to create links
from asd files it effectively masks another group's package is
reasonable. As someone pointed out, it can be worked around, but only
by excluding one link altogether, which is just as draconian and
undesirable. If you would just name it something unique, they could
both coexist and anyone could chose what they wanted to use. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:391f79580908220824m60da7e37k7b53dc9eaedad5a8@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Then, inform your users of the fact, and if they were relying on an implicit
use of CFFI in place of UFFI they should change their projects to explicitly
use CFFI by way of this definition file.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Not sure if this is what you mean, but some projects do indeed already
use cffi-uffi-compat explicitly (e.g., Edi Weitz's CL-GD uses it in
order to support CLISP.) but others don't, namely CL-SQL.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
cite="mid:391f79580908220824m60da7e37k7b53dc9eaedad5a8@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Bottom line is, if I rename CFFI's uffi.asd, it'll just break a bunch
stuff within clbuild and Elephant still won't work out of the box. I
don't see how that could be regarded as an improvement.
I would be glad to work with you to solve the problem, but renaming
uffi.asd is clearly not the first step.
</pre>
</blockquote>
What, specifically, will break if you rename uffi.asd to
cffi-uff-compat.asd? One solution would be to contact cl-sql devs and
tell them you are going to change it. Give them a heads up. I'm
guessing Edi already saw the potential problem and used the unique name
in advance. Can you think of a single other package? <br>
<br>
And, elephant works just fine out of the box so far as their claims go
- if I rename your compatibility definition file something else. <br>
<br>
--Jeff Cunningham<br>
</body>
</html>