On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 10:49:19AM -0400, Dmitry Tkach wrote:
> >
> >
> >Pack the support code for all drivers in, yes. The drivers themselves you
> >don't need to provide, as the support classes don't get loaded unless the
> >particular driver it supports is present.
> >
> >
> I need to *compile* all of that code.
> And to *compile* it, I'll need to have all of those drivers available...
> and I'll need all the possible versions of those drivers too, because I
> don't know which version the customer will be using...
>
> This is just simply impossible to do.
So you have to pick a set of drivers to support and go with that. If you have
multiple interface versions that are mutually incompatible, build multiple
versions of your extensions independantly of each other. Yes, it's messy to
build, but not impossible and certainly no worse than any other situation
where you have to support multiple versions of a dependent library.
If you don't want to support a large number of driver versions, those
versions you don't support can be handled by the "generic" implementation I
suggested in my previous email.
I'm not sure this argument is really relevant to "what should setObject()
vs. setArray() do?" any more. Replies off-list, please.
-O
