Re: Sync Call Notes
Thanks for the note! Sorry my calendar doesn’t pop up so I missed the sync.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 8:22 AM Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 07:17:34 -0400
> Alex Hagerman <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Notes from yesterdays sync call:
> > Uwe suggested adding in checks for the C++ ABI to detect breaking
> > changes. Discussed adding this to a CI build job daily.
> > Wes asked if certain C++ symbols could be marked experimental when
> > performing the C++ ABI checks.
> > Uwe also mentioned the potential of using PIMPLs to hide pointers and
> > implementation to prevent future C++ ABI breakage. He mentioned Parquet
> > C++ has a similar setup.
> Some questions:
> 1) are we ok with paying the cost of pimpls? (mostly the indirection
> cost I guess, and the fact that we can't have inline methods/accessors
> 2) how do we do for things like ArrayData, which seems publicly exposed
> by design?
> More generally, is it wise to focus on ABI compatibility even before a
> 1.0 is released?