From: Pedro Ferreira (pedro.ferreira_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-01-21 06:27:06
Em 21 Jan 2005, às 11:03, Vladimir Prus escreveu:
>>> One issue is that currently I plan to introduce per-project
>>> mapping (so "/boost" can mean different things in different
>>> this leave any functionality for the 'ProjectRegistry' class?
>> I'm not sure what you mean here.
>> Will this imply extended functionality for that class?
>> Will this render it unnecessary?
> Looks like the last variant. Each project will have a method to give a
> by project id. So, global project id -> project mapping seems
Ok but do you mean that the Manager object can own the targets
directly, without needing to separate them out using projects?
Then, the application or the parser would give the targets unique
identifiers, independently of the, say, Jamfile, where they are
>>> I think the next milestone can be such a basic.
>> When do you intend to release it?
> A couple of weeks, I hope.
>> Do you plan many changes before that?
> No, I need to implement new <tag>/stage logic and then only bugfixes
>> I'm planning on spending some time working on this now (e.g., this
>> weekend), so I'll just use the version I have and hope that you don't
>> change it too much :-)
> I hope to commit <tag>/stage today, then.
>>> declare a new feature. It means that Python modules must be something
>>> to bjam. Then, why don't we expose the Feature.py module to bjam as
>>> soon as
>>> the module is written, so that we quickly detect any problems?
>> I meant rewrite everything and then make it work. Why?
>> The rational, test-oriented, left-hand part of my brain insists that
>> should keep everything working all the time.
>> However, I have a gut feeling that it will take too long to integrate
>> bjam and Python in the way it is needed to do so.
>> I mean:
>> In order to use bjam to parse Jamfiles and directing the commands to
>> the Python engine, a basic one way mechanism would-suffice (I may be
>> missing something here, though).
>> OTOH, to perform a piecemeal transition to Python, one would need to
>> able to invoke functions from bjam to Python and vice-versa. Worse, we
>> would need to be able to pass objects between them and manage their
>> I have no experience whatsoever with the internals of scripting
>> languages, so I may be overwhelmed with just a minor issue!
>> For instance, I tried out the patch you sent (importing Python modules
>> from within bjam) and, despite being so simple, it worked very well.
>> Proposal: would you be interested in trying out that integration while
>> I keep on working on the Python port?
> I'll try. But after second though I take back part of my original
> argument. I
> think we don't want to allow extending PyBB with jam. Extending code
> generally be complex, I always suggested to put it into separate
> modules, and
> not all users even wrote it. Allowing extending PyBB in jam code would
> more complexities, and I'm not convinced it's needed.
>>> targets. Are you interested in some specific information?
>> I should have been clearer. My understanding is that scanners simply
>> define the regex they are interested in and somehow pass it on to the
>> build engine which does the actual scanning. Then, the scanner sets up
>> the dependencies. Bottom line, the "hard work" is done by the build
> That's right. bjam takes the regexps and scans the files. After that,
> it calls
> back Boost.Build with the found matches.
> I also think we should try to port make.jam as soon as possible. It's
> first rule which was implemented in V2 and is very simple, but yet
> allow to test on 'project_test3' and 'project_test4' tests.
Ok. I'll do it right now. Then I'll port whatever is needed to make it
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk