[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [cdt-dev] CDT Call Tomorrow
- From: Jesper Eskilson <jesper.eskilson@xxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:11:05 +0200
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- User-agent: Thunderbird 184.108.40.206 (X11/20080505)
Elena Laskavaia wrote:
Sorry I have to miss this call.
- MBS: projects
- wizards fixes (I think we won't apply it in 5.0 at this point?)
- we need to extend API to achieve better customization
The possibility of defining a toolchain using a Java API instead of in
XML would be really, REALLY, nice.
I've complained about this before
but it's such a pain to try to write the toolchain definition in XML.
It's clumsy and awkward at best and if you've made non-trivial mistakes
in your XML-code, you're basically on your own.
I really don't get the point of using XML for the toolchain definition
in the first place. Yes, it might be good to be able to define
extensions without having to write Java code, but only for simple
extensions (which toolchains are not). After that it's more pain to
write XML than Java.
Unless you're writing a toolchain for a compiler which is almost
identical to GCC you will still need to write Java code. (macro
providers, dependency scanners, etc.)