Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[cdt-dev] CDT Build (was: CDT Call Tomorrow)


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.


> -----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
> (
> -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

Back to the top