Recommended version of SWIG for building mapscript

[Umberto Nicoletti]

I have made some quick tests and 1.3.28 or 1.3.29 should work for Java too.
I think we could pick among one of those.

Umberto

On 8/23/06, Tamas Szekeres <szekerest at gmail.com> wrote:
> Apologies, i was not remember correctly that 1.3.26 was the sucking
> version and 1.3.27 1.3.28 1.3.29 seems to be good for C#. It was also
> tested with 1.3.25 and might be compilable but i would not suggest
> using this one for the C# bindings.
>
> Tamas
>
>
> 2006/8/23, Tamas Szekeres <szekerest at gmail.com>:
> > The C# interface is considered as being compatible with SWIG 1.3.27 and 1.3.29.
> > SWIG 1.3.28 was cancelled early by the SWIG developers after reporting
> > that mapscript C# is not compilable with it :)
> > I can see that maintaining the backward compatibility with the various
> > SWIG versions is more than a big deal and may require many defines
> > within the interface files.
> >
> > Tamas
> >
> >
> > 2006/8/23, Umberto Nicoletti <umberto.nicoletti at gmail.com>:
> > > Devs,
> > > do we have a recommended swig version?
> > >
> > > I am still using 1.3.21 but that seems not to be what is used to build MS4W.
> > > Versions of swig greater than 1.3.24 break the java tests because of a
> > > new way of handling enumerations. There is a quick fix for Java that
> > > makes newer swig handle enumerations like in 1.3.21, but I fear this
> > > will break apps of existing MS4W users.
> > >
> > > Maybe we should decide to adopt a common version on swig to avoid
> > > these kind of issues in the future?
> > >
> > > Umberto
> > >
> >
>