On 12/04/2011 12:44 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 11/29/2011 04:32 PM, Brar Piening wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>
>>> Some minor nitpicks:
>>>
>>> Do we really need to create all those VSnnnnProject.pm and
>>> VSnnnnSolution.pm files? They are all always included anyway. Why
>>> not just stash all the packages in Solution.pm and Project.pm?
>> We certainly don't *need* them.
>> Having different files separates the tasks of generating different
>> target file formats into different source files. In my opinion this
>> makes it easier to find the code that is actually generating the
>> files that get used in a specific build environment.
>> While the VSnnnnSolution.pm and VC200nProject.pm files are indeed not
>> much more than stubs that could eventually be extended in future (and
>> probably never will) VC2010Project.pm contains the whole code for
>> generating the new file format which would significantly bloat up the
>> code in Project.pm that currently contains the common code for
>> generating the old file formats.
>>
>> Anyhow - this is just my opinion and my intention is to help
>> improving the Windows build process and not forcing my design into
>> the project.
>>
>
> Well, I do also dislike the asymmetry of it. Here's what I suggest:
> for the Solution files, we'll just put the object packages in
> Solution.pm. There really doesn't seem like any need for those to have
> tiny files on their own. For the Project files, factor out the
> 2005/2008 specific parts from Project.pm into a new file, and have a
> new file for the equivalent parts of your new VC2010Project.pm. Then
> we'll add packages to Project.pm to create objects just like I'm
> suggesting above for Solution.pm. The result is then more symmetrical
> and we'll have three new files instead of seven (counting
> VSObjectFactory.pm).
>
> Perhaps, too, this has all got sufficiently complicated that adding
> some descritpion of what's going on here to README would be in order.
> I suspect some of my fellow committers tend to look at the whole thing
> and scratch their heads a bit, and that means expecting other people
> to make sense if it is probably a bit much ;-)
>
>
In the absence of reaction to this I've marked the patch as "waiting on
author", but if/when I have time I'll work on rearranging things as above.
cheers
andrew
