Boost logo

Boost Interest :

From: troy d. straszheim (troy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-02 20:12:25

David Abrahams wrote:
> Yes, that's what bjam is doing today. It uses popen to invoke all the
> commands and capture their output. To do the same with CMake you may
> need to request/implement some patches (?)

Turns it out wasn't necessary. :)

>>> Maybe we should pursue both tracks in parallel until we discover which
>>> one will be easiest?
>> Let's me get this ctest-rfc out and the traash demo up, let's discuss that,
>> then decide.

If the new xml-generation stuff in cmake looks good to people (comments?
Is it workable on windows?), then things have changed here a bit.
We control both ends of the protocol, and both ends are python.
Python has a built in xmlrpc client and trac has an xmlrpc plugin
for the server side:

which could *vastly* simplify the code. One wouldn't even have to touch XML.
On the client, you just marshal python datastructures to a log. At POST time,
you demarshal them, send them through an xmlrpc call, and they appear, unpacked,
in the arguments to a function call inside your trac plugin. Voila,
bye-bye tangly dart-log-parsing code. Going to play with this this evening.


Boost-cmake list run by bdawes at, david.abrahams at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at