Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cdt-dev] One more question about Managed builder

The main problem is that customer should avoid editing of generated make file (and I like it!). It means that all possible options (those you know now and those you don't know yet :-)) can be constructed using existing UI. It seems to me unrealistic. BTW, as far as I'm concerned, list control also doesn't help a lot for discussed case. I don't see any way to specify linkage type for each of the list elements.

Sean Evoy wrote:

Alex, I don't think any of the existing option types will output the line you
are looking for. The list option probably comes the closest, since it
will always append a specified prefix to each element it contains. That
said, it seems as though you want a pre-prefix, like -B<static|dynamic>,
followed by the contents of the list. The string option now allows you
to specify
Could you live with the prefix for each item being -Bstatic -l, so that
the output would be -Bstatic -llib1 -Bstatic -llib2 ... -Bdynamic -llibN
...? If so, then a list control will work for you.
We could add a custom option type that a toolchain implementer could
define, but before we take that route, I want to make sure there is no
other way to solve the problem.  As a design principle, I do not want to
see an explosion of option types to handle every possible output case.
It will make it hard to support the build model going forward and there
is a UI component to consider as well. Currently, the UI builds itself
based on the option description. String options are displayed in an
entry field, list options in a ListControl, and so on. If we do
introduce a custom option, then the implementer of that option is going
to have to supply the UI element (FieldEditor) that represents the
contents in the option graphically.
I could live with that with some reservations, not the least of which is
that we surrender some control over the UI look-and-feel to the
implementer of the custom option. Of course, this type of option is
likely to appear only in a commercial product so the implementer will
have a strong incentive to test properly. My other concern is that it
forces the implementer to write Java code, but again, only advanced
users would take advantage of this and you can (theoretically) implement
a toolchain without using a custom option.
Sean Evoy
Rational Software - IBM Software Group
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada




Alex Chapiro <achapiro@xxxxxxx> Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx

04/13/2004 06:09 PM

Please respond to
cdt-dev


To
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc

Subject
[cdt-dev] One more question about Managed builder

	





I'm just looking for the method how to define such an option as this one for an import libraries list (see ld) :

-Bstatic -llib1 -llib2 ... -Bdynamic -llibN ... -Bstatic ...
I cannot imajine anything but simple 'string' option, which is not very convinient. If I don't miss something, I think this is one more argument for existing of custom option categories.




_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev





Back to the top