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 ;-)
cheers
andrew