Re: [jamboost] Build variants

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-16 08:52:15

From: "Vladimir Prus" <ghost_at_[hidden]>

> David Abrahams wrote:
> > From: "Vladimir Prus" <ghost_at_[hidden]>
> >
> >>Am I missing something?
> >
> >
> > Yes: it's a lot more work to treat variants specially than to simply
treat
> > them as any other composite feature. Why deduce all the missing default
> > properties for a variant when they might need to be overridden by a
build
> > request or a derived variant anyway? It's easier just to fill in the
> > defaults when you know the build request, requirements, and variant.
>
> The purpose of non-optional properties is that default value of most
> properties is considered implitly present in build variants and not
> generate additional subvariant directories, right?

Argh. Of course you're right.

> So, you should either add more logic to property.as-path, or
> non-optional properties should be included in expansion of the composite
> properties which correspond to build variants.
>
> Seems I still miss something...

Nope, it's me this time. The easiest solution is probably to do as you say:
variants have a record of which properties were optional and which were
explicitly specified for the purposes of variant inheritance.

Let's go with that until it's proven untenable ;-)

-Dave

-----------------------------------------------------------
David Abrahams * Boost Consulting
dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com