[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [GSWHackers] Re: statistics
From: |
David Ayers |
Subject: |
Re: [GSWHackers] Re: statistics |
Date: |
Tue, 29 Oct 2002 13:12:16 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2b) Gecko/20021016 |
Nicola Pero wrote:
I'm not sure who you meant by 'you'... but if you meant people in general...
I'm sure most people know be my earlier posts, but to shed some more
light... I'm working on makefiles and headers to build two seperate sets
of GSWeb frameworks with clean namespaces. I already have a running
version but I'll wait to submit it until I've got it's usability to be
very easy, straight forward and configurable. This also depends on work
that is currently being done by Nicola to support multiple
FRAMEWORK_NAME entries in makefiles.
This might take some time before it's done.
You can still implement it without having the multiple FRAMEWORK_NAME
entries. For example (untested code, just drafting to give an idea) -
Thanks Nicola...
[... snip ...]
Please note that this is quite Ok :-) ... except it's going to be less
efficient than having support for multiple FRAMEWORK_NAMEs in gnustep-make
- but I don't think you should care as we're talking of little
inefficiencies.
I'm not worried about effiency, I'm just worried about usability and
maintainability.
You can also have it only at the top-level - if you have a single
top-level GNUmakefile which uses aggregate.make and SUBPROJECTS, it's much
simpler and nicer -
[... snip ...]
This is quite nicer. I'd definitely suggest using this second way if you
can.
Well in this case I do have an aggrefate.make but I would probably have
to extract the mechanism into a makefile fragment so that make
invocations in the subdirectories also work correctly and all use the
same configured default.
If this is important to someone else I'll gladly look into preparing it
ASAP. But as it seems everyone else seems contempt with the current
hybrid framworks and I have local solution, there seems to be no rush.
I'd rather wait to finish the final patch and invest my time on a
different constructin site right now (improving EOQualifer qualifier
format parsing).
Or is there someone actually waiting for this namespace split?
Cheers,
Dave