is wx 3.1.x dev releases stable for production?

This forum can be used to talk about general design strategies, new ideas and questions in general related to wxWidgets. If you feel your questions doesn't fit anywhere, put it here.
Post Reply
MagickPanda
Experienced Solver
Experienced Solver
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 1:41 pm

is wx 3.1.x dev releases stable for production?

Post by MagickPanda » Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:34 pm

I am currently using wx 3.1.0 dev release for my application, and I didn't find any breaking bugs using it, but I am still concerned since the 3.1.x is marked as 'development' version. hence the question.

Thanks.

ONEEYEMAN
Part Of The Furniture
Part Of The Furniture
Posts: 4170
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 7:22 am
Location: USA, Ukraine

Re: is wx 3.1.x dev releases stable for production?

Post by ONEEYEMAN » Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:54 pm

Hi,
What is your target OS(s)?
If its Windows - it probably doesn't matter much. You can compile a statically linked executable and be done with it.

If it's *nix/OSX - things get a little more complicated. Most of the distro's are using 3.0 as a stable released version, since it is a standard practice to do a dynamic linking in *nix world. At the same time 3.1 and 3.0 should be interchangeable.

The only difference is that 3.1 is not stable release, which means that it is possible that the API wise backward compatibility can be broken. But you still should be able to compile and run the application with the appropriate switch "ON".

So it is up to you.

I'm developing with 3.1 and I'm still far from finish so presumably when I'm done - 3.1 will be history and 3.2 will be a stable release. ;-)

Thank you.

MagickPanda
Experienced Solver
Experienced Solver
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 1:41 pm

Re: is wx 3.1.x dev releases stable for production?

Post by MagickPanda » Sat Jun 17, 2017 2:32 am

ONEEYEMAN wrote:Hi,
What is your target OS(s)?
If its Windows - it probably doesn't matter much. You can compile a statically linked executable and be done with it.

If it's *nix/OSX - things get a little more complicated. Most of the distro's are using 3.0 as a stable released version, since it is a standard practice to do a dynamic linking in *nix world. At the same time 3.1 and 3.0 should be interchangeable.

The only difference is that 3.1 is not stable release, which means that it is possible that the API wise backward compatibility can be broken. But you still should be able to compile and run the application with the appropriate switch "ON".

So it is up to you.

I'm developing with 3.1 and I'm still far from finish so presumably when I'm done - 3.1 will be history and 3.2 will be a stable release. ;-)

Thank you.
Thanks for the detailed information.

I am working on windows 7/8/10 atm, though the application might need to be able to run on light-weight 'cloud' Linux distro at some point, so sooner or later I will have to deal with the compatibility problems between window and *nix.

The API compatibility problem shouldn't be a major issue imo, as long as I follow the instructions of the compatibility switch #define etc properly.

ONEEYEMAN
Part Of The Furniture
Part Of The Furniture
Posts: 4170
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 7:22 am
Location: USA, Ukraine

Re: is wx 3.1.x dev releases stable for production?

Post by ONEEYEMAN » Sat Jun 17, 2017 3:00 pm

Keep in mind that it will take some time for the 3.1/3.2 to hit all *nix repositories.
And so you will probably have to be careful when compiling the libraryh itself and then the application.

Thank you.

User avatar
evstevemd
Part Of The Furniture
Part Of The Furniture
Posts: 2292
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:57 am
Location: United Republic of Tanzania
Contact:

Re: is wx 3.1.x dev releases stable for production?

Post by evstevemd » Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:48 am

I use latest Git version with no issues so far.
Chief Justice: We have trouble dear citizens!
Citizens: What it is his honor?
Chief Justice:Our president is an atheist, who will he swear to?
[Ubuntu 19.04/Windows 10 Pro/MacOS 10.13 - GCC/MinGW/Clang, CodeLite IDE]

Post Reply