Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cdt-dev] Build console location
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 7:28 PM, <Warren.Paul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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 cdt.make.ui?

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.

Andrew

 

Thanks,
Warren

 

 

From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext Andrew Gvozdev
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 5:21 PM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Build console location

 

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> wrote:
> 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.

Andrew


>
> 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 things
> from the other package?
>
> Andrew
>

> _______________________________________________
> 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

 


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


Back to the top