Re: [cdt-dev] CDT Build (was: CDT Call Tomorrow)

[Chris Recoskie <recoskie@xxxxxxxxxx>]

+0.25 from me...

While I agree that things are a nightmare right now and that you have to write Java code anyway if you are not supporting GCC, I don't want to be entirely forced to write everything in Java either. Having a nice editor where in you can edit your toolchains is very handy. I do not want to even think about the additional errors I'd make if I had to code up my entire build model by hand. It's like SWT... yes you can write it all in Java, but do you want to if you can help it? Most people use a GUI editor to generate the majority of the code and then add to it or tweak it later. Maybe something like an EMF model would be appropriate here.

For what it's worth.... the existing model allows you to contribute a Java class that provides your build model. However, no one really uses it because it is a bit scary. I think the Timesys guys used to use it, maybe they can comment. I haven't used it.

===========================

Chris Recoskie
Team Lead, IBM CDT Team
IBM Toronto
http://www.eclipse.org/cdt

"Schaefer, Doug" <Doug.Schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

"Schaefer, Doug" <Doug.Schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

06/12/2008 09:34 AM

Please respond to
"CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	"CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	[cdt-dev] CDT Build (was: CDT Call Tomorrow)

+1

The original goal for defining toolchains with extension points was so
that integrators didn't need to know java to add in their toolchains,
and it gave us a nice editor and storage management for the definitions
for free.

But in the end, we've added so much cool functionality that requires you
to write Java classes anyway, that I think it was a mistake. We've even
added the capability for you to create a factory to instantiate some of
the model yourself. I used it on a previous project and it let me make
the model more dynamic. And, face it, you need to be a Java programmer
to get anywhere near Eclipse plug-in development, so if you made it this
far, allowing you to create the build definitions in Java won't be a
hardship on many.

So yes, I agree, and will keep this in mind as we take a step back and
re-evaluate where we want to go.

Cheers,
Doug.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jesper Eskilson
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 4:11 AM
> To: CDT General developers list.
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] CDT Call Tomorrow
> 
> Elena Laskavaia wrote:
> > Sorry I have to miss this call.
> > About 5.1
> > - 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
> (http://thisisnotaprogrammersblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/writing
> -toolchain-plugin-for-cdt-or.html),
> 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.)
> 
> --
> /Jesper
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> 
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev