RE: [cdt-dev] Shared Tool Options

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]

RE: [cdt-dev] Shared Tool Options

From: Lars.Kurth@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:56:37 +0000
Delivered-to: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
List-archive: <http://dev.eclipse.org/pipermail/cdt-dev/>
List-help: <mailto:cdt-dev-request@eclipse.org?subject=help>
List-subscribe: <http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev>, <mailto:cdt-dev-request@eclipse.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev>, <mailto:cdt-dev-request@eclipse.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Leo,
I'll send out a revised proposal before I go on holidays. I have seen that everybody else attaches their proposals to a bugzilla report. Can I create one myself, or do I need a CDT committer to create one?

A couple of minor questions to your last point, to double check:
> I’d also like to add two additional methods that deal with option values:
> - boolean isDefaultValue(): returns True if the current value of the Option is its default value
> - boolean isEnumValueAppropriate(int): returns True if the passed-in enumeration value is currently a valid choice. This method is called before the
> MBS displays the combo box associated with an enumerated Option. MBS will not add currently invalid choices to the combo box.
These are presumably new public methods in the IOption interface and Option class.
What do you mean by valid choice? I thought all valid choices follow from the definitions in the MBS grammar. So is the intention here to prevent the call-back to provide an invalid value that would otherwise get added to the combo box, should the callback provide such a value?
Best Regards
-- Lars

"Treggiari, Leo" <leo.treggiari@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx

20/03/2005 19:45

Please respond to
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx

To	<cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	RE: [cdt-dev] Shared Tool Options

Hi Lars,

Regarding April 1^st, Eclipse M6 is April 1^st, but CDT M6 is April 11^th. I interpret that to mean that the CDT API freeze is April 11^th.

Your proposal looks good! I have comments in 2 areas:

1. Regarding the persistence of tool-chain Options values: There is no way that you would have known this, since the Build Macros design has not been posted yet, but only user-defined build macro values will be persisted by the MBS. MBS will call a tool integration when it wants to know which build macros the tool integration has defined and what the values are. I think this means that the tool-chain Option values should be persisted, and there is no need for the persistValue attribute. Also, build macros, except for build macros whose value is an environment variable, will be resolved before generating the make file.

2. Regarding the IManagedOptionValueManager interface: I suggest changing the name to IManagedOptionValueHandler. “Manager” seems to be used in Eclipse names for objects that manage a group of items. I suggest that the manageValue method be renamed to handleEvemt. I’d like to define 2 additional event enumerated values:
- EVENT_LOSEFOCUS: a chance to validate the value
- EVENT_CANCEL: for completeness

I’d also like to add two additional methods that deal with option values:
- boolean isDefaultValue(): returns True if the current value of the Option is its default value
- boolean isEnumValueAppropriate(int): returns True if the passed-in enumeration value is currently a valid choice. This method is called before the MBS displays the combo box associated with an enumerated Option. MBS will not add currently invalid choices to the combo box.

Thanks,
Leo

From: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lars.Kurth@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 2:32 PM
To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx; cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] Shared Tool Options

Leo, Chris,
please find attached the "Shared Tool Options" proposal for review. I am a bit tight with time (going on holidays on the 24th), so I omitted the listDelimiter side of the proposal.

> Keep in mind we have to freeze API design for M6 on April 1^st…
Chris, what does this exactly mean? I suppose it means that designs for changes to publicly visible APIs must be done and agreed by April 1st.

Best Regards
-- Lars

"Recoskie, Chris" <crecoskie@xxxxxx>
Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx

17/03/2005 15:34

Please respond to
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx

To	<cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	RE: [cdt-dev] Shared Tool Options

Keep in mind we have to freeze API design for M6 on April 1^st…

___________________________________________

Chris Recoskie
Software Designer
IDE Frameworks Group
Texas Instruments, Toronto

From: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lars.Kurth@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 8:05 AM
To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] Shared Tool Options

Leo,
I am going to be on holidays until April the 1st. I will try and get a proposal together in the first or 2nd week of april. I will include the listDelimiter proposal which you mentioned in the "[cdt-dev] Feedback on "Multiple Tool Inputs and Outputs design" e-mail trail.

What should we use as baseline? It seems that both proposals are independent of the development that goes on in CDT3.0, so it should be possible to create a patch based on CDT2.1.1. I would prefer the latter.

Best Regards
-- Lars

"Treggiari, Leo" <leo.treggiari@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx

14/03/2005 13:46

Please respond to
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx

To	<cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	RE: [cdt-dev] Shared Tool Options

Hi Lars,

One which allows to retrieve and set up default values of the new optionCategory and option elements before they are shown. The reason for this is that the user may manually change the build macros using the build macro UI.

I think that this is Option element functionality. Currently an Option can have a “static” default value. One of the “below the line” MBS requirements is:

1. An option can provide a method to be called to return its default value. This supports the case where the default value of the option changes based upon the value of another option(s) or some other environment setting.

As with other currently “below the line” functionality, if you (or your team) is willing to design and implement this, we could get it in 3.0.

Regards,
Leo

From: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lars.Kurth@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 5:39 AM
To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Shared Tool Options

Leo,
this looks like a workable approach.

> The tool-integration would be able to retrieve the option values from
> MBS callbacks.
For a clean solution we may need two call-backs:

One which allows to retrieve and set up default values of the new optionCategory and option elements before they are shown. The reason for this is that the user may manually change the build macros using th build macro UI.
One which allows to query the values of the new optionCategory and option elements after they have been set (as you proposed).

They could of course be implemented as one entry in the MBS grammar. The difficulty is to decide when the callbacks are called.

Whether your proposal meets our requirement would depend on the detailed design of the Build Macros proposal. There would need to be an API which allows setting and querying of Build Macros.

> If you agree that this would meet your requirement, would you be willing
> to submit a design for supporting OptionCategory and Option children of
> ToolChain elements, and implement the design for CDT 3.0?
I will discuss this at Symbian this week and will come back to you later this week.

Regards
-- Lars

"Treggiari, Leo" <leo.treggiari@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx

13/03/2005 03:38

Please respond to
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx

To	<cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	[cdt-dev] Shared Tool Options

Hi Lars,

I've been thinking about your requirement below and have a
counter-proposal.

1.1 Shared Tool Options
A number of Symbian tools require that identical options are passed into
each individual tool. For example the resource compiler, AIF file
generator and compiler require a set of shared -D and -I options.
Platform security options are another example. Here the user has to
choose from a global set of security attributes (e.g. CapabilityAll)
which map onto different options for different tools (e.g. -Security=xyz
for the resource compiler, -DSECURITY=0xabc for the compiler, etc.). If
inconsistent options are passed to the tools, the resulting binary will
not work correctly or may fail to build.
MBS supports defining options per tool only. This means that shared
options have to be replicated in different tools and that the user has
to keep them in sync manually.

My idea is allow OptionCategory and Option elements to be children of
the
ToolChain element. ToolChain categories would display in the Tool
Settings page at the top level, that is, at the same level as the Tools.

The values set in these options would not be used in command line
generation - the command, commandFalse, and resourceFilter attributes
would be ignored.
The tool-integration would be able to retrieve the option values from
MBS callbacks.

For your usage, you would use build macros in the options to be set from
the values of the ToolChain options. The build macros design will be
coming soon. A tool-integration will be able to define build macros and
their values. You would set your build macro values from your
tool-chain options.

If you agree that this would meet your requirement, would you be willing
to submit a design for supporting OptionCategory and Option children of
ToolChain elements, and implement the design for CDT 3.0?

Thanks,
Leo

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

********************************************************************** Symbian Software Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with registered number 4190020 and registered office at 2-6 Boundary Row, Southwark, London, SE1 8HP, UK. This message is intended only for use by the named addressee and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error please notify postmaster@xxxxxxxxxxx and delete the message and any attachments accompanying it immediately. Neither Symbian nor any of its subsidiaries accepts liability for any corruption, interception, amendment, tampering or viruses occurring to this message in transit or for any message sent by its employees which is not in compliance with Symbian corporate policy. **********************************************************************

References:
- RE: [cdt-dev] Shared Tool Options
  - From: Treggiari, Leo

Prev by Date: RE: [cdt-dev] Managed Make Solutions, GCC and Linking problems
Next by Date: RE: [cdt-dev] Shared Tool Options
Previous by thread: RE: [cdt-dev] Shared Tool Options
Next by thread: RE: [cdt-dev] Shared Tool Options
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Breadcrumbs