From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-01-21 06:35:05
On Friday 21 January 2005 14:27, Pedro Ferreira wrote:
> Hi again,
> > Looks like the last variant. Each project will have a method to give a
> > project
> > by project id. So, global project id -> project mapping seems
> > unnecessary.
> 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
No, I think Project class is still needed. But I don't know what
ProjectManager class will do. Will it simply have a list of all projects?
> > I also think we should try to port make.jam as soon as possible. It's
> > the
> > first rule which was implemented in V2 and is very simple, but yet
> > would
> > 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