fix(rust): Allow loading more recent libraries #153
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
It should be legal to provide a bridgestan library that was compiled with a later version of bridgestan, providing the major version still matches.
We only really guarantee a stable API, but ABI compatibility should be inherited from whatever C compiler is used. This sounds good to me |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I think it should be legal to provide a bridgestan library that was compiled with a later version of bridgestan, if the major version still matches. But the rust wrapper expects an exact version match right now. This means that downstream rust libraries have to specify an exact version of the python bridgestan library, or a user could update the python library and libraries built by that new bridgestan couldn't be loaded anymore.
Supporting older libraries would be some work, as we would have to handle the case that symbols might be missing in the library, so we still don't allow that.
This change would also imply that the ABI can't change without a major version bump. I can't really think of reasons why that would be a problem though...