Re: [platform-core-dev] Build questions

[Alex Chapiro <achapiro@xxxxxxx>]

Thanks Jeremiah,

See discussion in Bug report #70554. I'm still not happy with build 
manager implementation. It is too java-centric. I still haven't found 
any good solution for this problem. The only idea is do not use 
BuildManager service in my builder implementation. :-(

Alex

Lott, Jeremiah wrote:

> FYI - This builder behavior also causes problems for me.  It particular,
> we would like to respond to an AUTO_BUILD request differently than an
> INCREMENTAL_BUILD or a FULL_BUILD.  However the code that Alex mentions
> changes the "kind" flag that is passed to my builder.  Therefore even
> when it is really an AUTO_BUILD, my builder sometimes gets the
> FULL_BUILD flag and therefore performs the wrong operation.  It would be
> nice if you could leave the decision to change the flag up to each
> builder individually.
>
>  Jeremiah
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Chapiro [mailto:achapiro@xxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 5:49 PM
> To: platform-core-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [platform-core-dev] Build questions
>
>
> <beginning of message snipped>
> ...
>
>
> I'm blaming in my troubles the following lines of code from 
> BuildManager.basicBuild(...) method:
>
> lastBuiltTree = currentBuilder.getLastBuiltTree();
> // If no tree is available we have to do a full build
> if (!clean && lastBuiltTree == null)
>   trigger = IncrementalProjectBuilder.FULL_BUILD;
>
> in case 1) lastBuildTree is always null after CLEAN_BUILD (see below in 
> the same method:
> if (clean || currentBuilder.wasForgetStateRequested()) {
>    currentBuilder.setLastBuiltTree(null);
>
> In case 2) lastBuildTree is null after forgetLastBuildState calling.
>
> Build manager should provide framework for other builders 
> implementations. I don't understand why it instead of being transparent 
> for user commands implements some hidden undocumented and unmodifiable 
> behavior.
> Of course I realize that maybe I provide a wrong interpretation. I'd be 
> happy if either I will be corrected or any work around will be advised.
>
> Sorry for the long and messy explanation of the problem.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> platform-core-dev mailing list
> platform-core-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-core-dev
> _______________________________________________
> platform-core-dev mailing list
> platform-core-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-core-dev
>
>