[gdal-dev] CSharp bindings question

[Tamas Szekeres]

Is that a requirement that the bindings should work well with all SWIG
versions or that the generated wrappers should work just fine?

Formerly I have been thinking that we should support all versions, but it
took large amount of extra efforts to work around all incompatible changes
what SWIG introduces all the time even with the minor releases. Regarding
to SWIG C# the earlier versions produced definitely wrong code and I had
implement quite some generic stuff in the bindings (for example to work
around the early garbage collection issues). I see some enhancements in the
recent versions in this regard, but I'm not sure if I can completely remove
these additions to get a stable and consistent build.

Tamas



2015-05-26 11:09 GMT+02:00 Ari Jolma <ari.jolma at gmail.com>:

> 26.05.2015, 11:38, Even Rouault kirjoitti:
>
>> Le mardi 26 mai 2015 10:13:49, Tamas Szekeres a écrit :
>>
>>> Hi Ari,
>>>
>>> I haven't tried to compile that with mono for quite a long time. I'll
>>> give
>>> it a try.
>>>
>>> However we did not follow the latest changes in the SWIG implementation
>>> with the bindings, so I'd try with an earlier version (ie. 1.3.39) to
>>> generate the wrappers.
>>>
>> I can confirm that I can compile the CSharp bindings on Linux with SWIG
>> 1.3.40
>> (and run the tests), but I get the same error as Ari with SWIG 2.0.X
>>
>> As far as I know, Java and Python bindings build and run equaly well with
>> SWIG
>> 1.3.40 or 2.0.X (although there's a Unix makefile hack to have Python 3.2
>> compat, conditionnaly applied with SWIG 1.3.40, that is no longer needed
>> with
>> SWIG 2.0.4 or later)
>>
>
> Swig 1.3.39 seems questionable. Just look at the download amounts at
> sourceforge. 1.3.39 one download and 1.3.40 148 downloads per week.
>
> However, 1.3.39 does *not* put the PVINVOKE() method twice into the
> PVINVOKE.cs file.
>
>
>>  May be we should consider including the generated
>>> wrappers in gdal instead of let the users to use different versions with
>>> different results.
>>>
>> It would be good if we could have a common SWIG version that works for
>> all the
>> bindings. So currently it seems to be 1.3.40 ?
>>
>> Regarding putting the generated wrappers in SVN, that's already what we
>> do for
>> Python. We could also just include the generated wrappers in the tarballs.
>>
>
> IMO "users" = people who use ready-made packages. Developers and packagers
> should be intelligent enough to use development tools. I don't like the
> idea of having generated files in source repositories. I'm also of the
> opinion that there should be a really good reason to use an old version of
> a common tool. And at least in my Linux (Mint, Maya - hmm, that seems
> already pretty old, I should upgrade) swig 2.0.11 is the current. But
> that's just me I guess.
>
> Ari
>
>
>> Even
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20150526/a0abfe95/attachment.html>