Re: [jamboost] Development plan

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-28 13:22:52

----- Original Message -----
From: "Vladimir Prus" <ghost_at_[hidden]>
To: <jamboost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: [jamboost] Development plan

> David Abrahams wrote:
>
> David Abrahams wrote:
>
> > > > Target types (implemented atop features/properties):
> > > > Generators
> > > > Virtual Targets
> > > > Source->Target Expansion Process
> > > >
> > > > Implementation of a few toolsets in the new framework
> > >
> > > See no omissions here.
> >
> > Great; we should choose a rough development order and start picking off
> > jobs. Suggestions?
>
> Hmm... you should have recieved my email asking if it's ok to commit
os.path
> module :-)

I had missed it, but now I've replied.

> Beyond that, there is
> 0. Many things depend on PWD and initialization

I am sort of hoping that Rene will volunteer for this, since it was his
idea... but of course, "no pressure" ;^)

In the meantime, we can always simulate it by setting some environment
variables manually, can't we?

> 1. build request expansion, and then target types

I think part of build request expansion is already done in feature.jam,
though not all of it. Incidentally, I don't think we need "executed"
features; it's not clear exactly what the meant anyway. What do you mean by
"and then target types"? Are you just saying that target types should be
implemented after build request expansion?

> 2. Abstract targets/projects
> 3. Generators/virtual targets
> 4. Toolsets
>
> I'm still playing with (2). I think that it would work on 3-4 can start
only
> when 1-2 is finished.

That makes sense to me.

> I think it's quite feasible to test (2) in isolation.
> Now, who will pick what?

I can finish build request expansion in the 1st week of Feb., if not
earlier.

-Dave