I struggled with that question, but in the end it came to what’s the difference between creating an implementation of ILaunchTarget versus IRemoteConnection?
The implementation for Arduino will tell me how much work is involved. Other than storing the serial port name, it should be a pretty minimal implementation for IRemoteConnection. So we’ll see.
The key is to start driving towards a single API for target management so all our tools can work together. Introducing yet another one is a maintenance nightmare and really unnecessary.
Doug.
On 28/11/2014 9:46 AM, Doug Schaefer wrote:
So, I’m currently prototyping replacing ILaunchTarget with IRemoteConnection. So far, I’m getting excited about the direction. Everything I wanted is already in the Remote plug-ins. And it
looks easy to extend to add new connection types. The big test will be getting the Arduino serial connection implemented with this. I’ll also be adding a re-usable file system browser that’ll use the file APIs. The big benefit will be to get SSH remote target
support with minimal effort.
Doug,
I may be wrong but wouldn't it be better to keep ILaunchTarget very simple and provide an implementation based on IRemoteConnection. This with a proper registration mechanism would allow other implementations of ILaunchTarget that are not based on o.e.remote.
Mikhail
