Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • Interesting! I never considered the possibility of wrapping the library to help decoupling. Thanks for your input! Commented Feb 22, 2013 at 13:55
  • Wrappers are a good idea if you use them from square one. If you're already using the library directly, switching to a generic wrapper will require refactoring and re-testing a lot of code. Commented Feb 22, 2013 at 14:02
  • 1
    @Blrfl yes, that's why it's not a step to be taken lightly. But in at least one case we had a 3rd party (OSS) library change all its packages and classnames between 2 minor releases, and had no recourse but to adopt it, so the refactoring had to be done anyway. This way, we ended up future proof as well as having the issue fixed that caused the requirement to use the new version. Commented Feb 22, 2013 at 14:50
  • @jwenting: Absolutely agree. I do the same thing with Boost because while some of their implementations are good, the interfaces can be obtuse. That, and they tend to change things around frequently, too. Commented Feb 22, 2013 at 15:26
  • 3
    Note that some Linux distributions effectively maintain their own „forks” of software by backporting security patches to earlier releases. Commented Feb 22, 2013 at 16:38