[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [cdt-dev] Build console location
- From: Andrew Gvozdev <angvoz.dev@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:14:53 -0400
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=x05XAv1t0o/JE4pJr2Z85+yWcYlO9Cu8fxn/VzqfPQc=; b=xWCv0wYVGk+UE9TmcQl2+/mC3nyEhUb2BDDim/yBlfJrW3nub5JZRHFV10/CC/RcuD 9V6TrY7j536iijcyh3Onz1aE3rhl+p/kkU7YaSzvBOj7r1tpU/nKbuodHo3m0p7nHY03 y0dgPTk0U4xE9yCd39phz+ONHyMa7hnAk4rfM=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=G1CxhfczBhBhA3l0HywHdVvJiEq6Ywoa/2mUKiZ99BaL8t1VLRoQdO/NY4co7XMpC9 lAKXLCeX7plRxKswBoz17KNZPEch2mXn1iQ4PFzcPlBkV4jgsRifxMMtfhlaCFyJmYIk QRKn9nwXD/0Id75INEpUWfe7Gg6+WlUTnsZLU=
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 7:28 PM, <Warren.Paul@xxxxxxxxx>
I tend to agree with Doug on this one. I’m not
saying that moving it would necessarily break any existing products, but it
could. All public access to the build console is currently all from
cdt.core and cdt.ui AFAIK. I haven’t looked at the patch, but
I’m assuming this change would introduce a new dependency from cdt.ui to
No it won't. On the contrary, one of the reasons for moving is to avoid that dependency.
Even if it somehow didn’t, you’re still forcing
anyone using the build console to include the make plugins, which they currently
don’t have to. We use the makefile parser from make.core, but
nothing from make.ui or the managedbuilder plugins.
Do you actually deploy your product with stripped down version of CDT, i.e. without cdt.make.ui and managedbuilder plugins?
Even if none of the above were an issue, I’d be concerned about
the new proposed functionality. It’s not very generic and won’t
work with any builder, so I don’t think it should be added to the generic
build console. At least not without more checks in place. For
example, if the project in context has this build nature then show the new UI,
otherwise hide it.
Just my $.02.
Your points are well taken, thanks for your response.
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:23
PM, Andrew Gvozdev <angvoz.dev@xxxxxxxxx>
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The idea is that the build console is independent of whatever build
>> system you are using.
> I agree with this statement and think everybody does. The moving does not
> introduce dependency from build console to MBS. I think de-facto
> org.eclipse.cdt.make encompass build functionality common for all build
> systems in general.
I'm not sure that's true. That's my point. I believe there are
commercial products out there that don't use CDT's build system at
all, including cdt.make.
I suppose you are worrying
about the case when the vendors use their own builder (i.e. modified copy of
cdt.make.core.MakeBuilder)? I don't believe it would ever break these. The
console is still contributed via extension point
org.eclipse.cdt.core.CBuildConsole in cdt.core and CCorePlugin.getConsole()
will pull it from whatever plugin contributed the console.
> Do you see the package as being specific to Standard Make build? In this
> case, would you agree to create a new package encompassing general build
> functionality and move there the build console and generalized build
> from the other package?
cdt-dev mailing list