Re: [jamboost] Wrapping up new design

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-04 10:31:12

My comments below apply to the whole discussion between Rene and David.

I'm not sure that crawling up, locating Jamrules and doing something with it 
is either very needed, or even good to have.

First, its only object is to allow building without extra step of setting 
BOOST_BUILD_PATH. Looks to me that a simple script/program can take care of 
this (and seems like Rene has such script already). Crawling up appears to be 
an overly smart solution. 

Second, including Jamrules before loading boost build files might be a 
problem. If Jamrules is to tell the location of boost-build system, what rule 
will be used for that and where will it be defined? 

Rene wrote: 
> Maybe just supporting "Jamfile.jam" as an alternate spelling would be enough
> to provide the convenience without complicating the implementation all that
> much.

How can this be done? Elements of SEARCH can be only directories, not files, 
so I don't know how two alternative spellings can be specified.

David wrote:
> Maybe we should just dispense with "Jamfile" and go with "project.jam"
> (taking the place of Jamfile) and "project-config.jam" (taking the place of
> Jamrules).

I don't like the idea: "Jamfile" is good for me...
"Jamrules" is not so good name, however. But "project-config.jam" isn't good 
either -- it suggests only simple configuration switched as content, while 
it's okay to have rather elaborate rules in it. For me the best name is 
"Jamglobals" (or "Jamglobal")

- Volodya