[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [dsdp-mtj-dev] MTJ Build Hooks requirements
|
David,
I do share your concerns... One possible idea... Have the callback
return a boolean. If true, we continue to call that callback for that
particular project/state. If false, we don't call that hook for that
callback any more. That way the hook is still completely in control
of what hook state/project combinations the hook will be called for.
Just a thought. It may be too complex.
Craig
On Apr 14, 2009, at 7:28 AM, David Marques wrote:
Hi Craig,
I like your idea to generalize the hooks and make them see the
build system as a "state machine". I have some concerns regarding
the overhead of calling all registered hooks, but let's hope hook
providers will do their job right :)
Well if everyone agrees on it, I will do the suggested changes.
Regards,
David Marques
Craig Setera wrote:
Finally found some time to look through your documents and look
through Jon's questions. I hate to even make a suggestion this
late in the game, but I'm going to anyway <grin>
In terms of the filtering, I think that we should just go ahead and
call the registered hooks every time. We should leave it to the
hook implementor to query the currently selected device or anything
else of interest from the MTJ project instance and decide if they
want to do anything within the hook. That way we don't need to
depend on a name matching routine or what the various SDK's decide
they want to use for the identifiers. In addition, it is much more
flexible for the hook implementor in terms of how they decide what
they want to do and when. We should document (somewhere) that this
determination needs to be done as quickly as possible in the hook's
implementation.
To answer one of Jon's other questions, I think it may make sense
to generalize the pre/post build to include the *possibility* of
more states. (while limiting it for now). In theory, we have lots
of build states:
- Pre Build
- Pre Preprocessing
- Post Preprocessing
- Pre Compile
- Post Compile
...
- Post Build
If we create the IMTJBuildHook interface to have a single callback
method that looks something like:
public void buildCallback(IMTJProject project, BuildStep step,
IProgressMonitor _monitor) throws CoreException
We can then make BuildStep (or whatever we want to call it) be an
Enumeration. I would suggest that until we have more time to work
through the details, that there would be only the two initial
BuildSteps in the enumeration of PRE_BUILD and POST_BUILD. With
that said, this approach would be more extensible in the future and
we could add new steps in the future for use by interested hook
builders. If we do this, it should be documented that unexpected
callback types should be *ignored* by the hook.
Thoughts? I know it is a departure from your current design, but I
do think it is more flexible and meets some of the requirements
that I (think I) hear from Jon for their use. I apologize again
for throwing this into the mix so late... I will try to do a better
job of staying on top some of this stuff.
Craig
David Marques wrote:
Hi Craig,
I see your point, although mtj does not use the ISDK interface
anywhere yet, so for now it would not work. How about doing this
change latter when the ISDK interface is used by MTJ ??
Regards,
David Marques
Craig Setera wrote:
Sorry... As usual lately, I'm swamped. I guess I have a concern
with the SDK name being used as the identifier in the general
case... in particular when we get the new SDK extension point up
and going. It seems to me that we likely need to add a
getIdentifier() method to the SDK object and that that name will
be the SDK name by default for "imported" Devices/SDKs.
_______________________________________________
dsdp-mtj-dev mailing list
dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-mtj-dev
_______________________________________________
dsdp-mtj-dev mailing list
dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-mtj-dev
