| RE: [cdt-dev] Build model proposal |
Agreed, we need the UI also. I think Alain's point was simply that the core and the UI need to be separated into distinct packages, in keeping with the general architecture of Eclipse.
-Sky
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Songer
To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx; 'cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx'
Sent: 17/12/2002 6:22 PM
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] Build model proposal
Hi!
Fair enough, but if you are only looking at the model, you are ignoring
the biggest focus of an IDE: the UI. I can get access to C compilers
without an UI already and I don't have to run a JVM to get it.
Contributed toolchains without contributed UI's to configure the tools
are useless in an IDE.
Thanks!
-Chris
At 05:43 PM 12/17/2002 -0500, Matthews, Sky wrote:
You need to separate the model (APIs to get/set the compiler properties,
switches, etc.) from the UI that provides user view/access to the model.
What if we wanted to build a headless version? :-)
-Sky
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Songer [ mailto:songer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:songer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ]
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 5:02 PM
To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx; cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Build model proposal
At 04:34 PM 12/17/2002 -0500, Alain Magloire wrote:
>If IToolChain is in the core, it should not have a getTabs().
What's a compiler without the UI to configure the switches for the
compiler?
Thanks!
-Chris
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
<http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev>
_______________________________________________ cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev