Re: [jamboost] Python + bjam: some questions

From: Pedro Ferreira (pedro.ferreira_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-08 06:45:31

Hi Volodya,

On 5 Mar 2005, at 08:29, Vladimir Prus wrote:

> I think we need some discussion here. Now the action name stored in 
> the Action
> class:
> - must be callable
> - must provide __name__ attribute which is then passed to build engine
>
> For the make rule, the action is specified in Jamfile, and the above 
> is not
> very convenient. I don't think defining a function with the same name 
> as
> action name is nice, so I've created BjamActionWrapper class which is
> callable and which __name__ attribute is equal to the action name (see 
> the
> action.py file). And since it's callable, I've modified the __call__ 
> method
> to call bjam and set up the actions.
>
> What I'm driving at is that if action is callable, then we don't need 
> do
> handle the name, the call can do anything. If we use only the name, 
> then why
> require that action is callable? Say the __call__ method can both set 
> up
> target variables and then call bjam. What would be the role of
> BjamBuildSystem is not clear. Maybe it should be just a factory for
> appropriate actions? I really don't know the right approach yet.

I committed a change to the way rules and actions are handled: they are 
registered in the action module and then are identified by a id in the 
format toolset.rule, just as in BBv2.
I didn't adjust the code you wrote because I haven't managed to get it 
running (yet, I'm setting it up on a Linux machine right now), so I'd 
appreciate if you take a look at it.

Regards,

Pedro