Boost Interest :
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-06 11:39:23
on Mon Jun 02 2008, "troy d. straszheim" <troy-rPoGFrA5WPqukZHgTAicrQ-AT-public.gmane.org> wrote:
> 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:
Yep, I know about that thing.
> 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.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com