| Re: [lsp4e-dev] [CAUTION] Re: Requesting feedback to a change that adds support for nested sub-projects to LSP4E |
|
Hi all, Dbaeumers response does not sound like the protocol will change in this respect: “Actually the specification intentionally doesn't clarify this since
it might depend on the server implementation. For example the TSServer handles all workspace root folders and nested projects in one server. The MS C++ server can only handle on project pre server and the client starts a server per project and dispatches the
requests to the corresponding server. For VS Code we even maintain two example projects demos both use cases here: https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode-extension-samples”
From: lsp4e-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lsp4e-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ofterdinger, Markus Hi Mikael, I created an issue to ask for clarification:
https://github.com/Microsoft/language-server-protocol/issues/475 Thanks, Markus From: <lsp4e-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Mickael Istria <mistria@xxxxxxxxxx> Hi, Thanks a lot for this interesting proposal and opening it for discussion. As mentioned on the bug, I think you should immediately consider enabling multi-root support in your LS to workaround this issue (additionally to the tremendous perf benefit brought by 1 LS per workspace instead of 1 LS per project). That
said... I think it's also worth starting the discussion on the LSP tracker itself about whether the protocol should emit some documentation, constraints or recommendations for such case: is a language-server expected to serve for all children file
of the root folder? Can you please bring this to the LSP spec too? LSP4E can take a pragmatic choice independently of the spec: if we see all LS that are used over LSP4E these days do work for any child under a project, let's not make the spec a blocker and
let's proceed with your proposal.
If after extensive thoughts and testing (ideally against aCute and Corrosion too) some other committers are fine merging this change in my absence, I'm all fine with it. I don't want to be a blocker here. Cheers, |