RE: [cdt-dev] CDT Build (was: CDT Call Tomorrow)

["Schaefer, Doug" <Doug.Schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I used it but at the moment you can only create a subset of the entire
model. I think that's really only because it's not complete. It
parallels the extension point but not completely.
 
Doug.


________________________________

	From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Recoskie
	Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 9:57 AM
	To: CDT General developers list.
	Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] CDT Build (was: CDT Call Tomorrow)
	
	

	+0.25 from me...
	
	While I agree that things are a nightmare right now and that you
have to write Java code anyway if you are not supporting GCC, I don't
want to be entirely forced to write everything in Java either. Having a
nice editor where in you can edit your toolchains is very handy. I do
not want to even think about the additional errors I'd make if I had to
code up my entire build model by hand. It's like SWT... yes you can
write it all in Java, but do you want to if you can help it? Most people
use a GUI editor to generate the majority of the code and then add to it
or tweak it later. Maybe something like an EMF model would be
appropriate here.
	
	For what it's worth.... the existing model allows you to
contribute a Java class that provides your build model. However, no one
really uses it because it is a bit scary. I think the Timesys guys used
to use it, maybe they can comment. I haven't used it.
	
	===========================
	
	Chris Recoskie
	Team Lead, IBM CDT Team
	IBM Toronto
	http://www.eclipse.org/cdt
	
	 "Schaefer, Doug" <Doug.Schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
	
	
	

				"Schaefer, Doug"
<Doug.Schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
				Sent by: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 

				06/12/2008 09:34 AM 
	
	Please respond to
"CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

 

To

"CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>	


cc

	


Subject

[cdt-dev] CDT Build (was: CDT Call Tomorrow)	
	 	

	+1
	
	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.
	
	Cheers,
	Doug.
	
	> -----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
	> (http://thisisnotaprogrammersblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/writing
	> -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
	> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
	> 
	_______________________________________________
	cdt-dev mailing list
	cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
	https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev