Hello,
does anyone out there use the -m function (creation of makefiles) on WSDL2Ws ? If not then we are thnking of removing it to increase stability.
cheers,
John.
----- Forwarded by John Hawkins/UK/IBM on 09/02/2005 09:49 -----
| Samisa Abeysinghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
09/02/2005 06:19
|
|
Given that we have problems with make file system even with build on
L/Unix like platforms, I feel that it is not worth having it here.
Could document how to compile and link clients/servers using basic g++
commands to help users.
Thanks,
Samisa...
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 16:18:30 +0000, Andrew Perry2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is a test which checks -m option. but it only checks if the makefile
> is generated or not and not the validity of the makefile.
> These WSDL2WS options tests will be added soon.
>
> Regards,
>
> Andrew Perry
> IBM Web Services Client for C/C++
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Mail Point 127
> IBM UK Laboratories. Hursley Park, Winchester, Hants. SO21 2JN
> Tel. Internal 249828 External + 44 (0)1962 819828
> Fax. + 44(0)1962 818080
>
> John
> Hawkins/UK/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> MGB To
> "Apache AXIS C Developers List"
> 08/02/2005 14:57 <axis-c-dev@ws.apache.org>
> cc
>
> Please respond to Subject
> "Apache AXIS C Re: Gnu Make files
> Developers List"
>
>
> It is an option currently on WSDL2Ws ->
> "-m<none|gnu> generate make files (none|gnu) - default is
> none\n");
>
> Nadir Amra
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To
> "Apache AXIS C Developers List"
> 08/02/2005 14:44 <axis-c-dev@ws.apache.org>
> cc
>
> Please respond to Subject
> "Apache AXIS C Re: Gnu Make files
> Developers List"
>
>
> I prefer not to generate makefiles....but if people want this then it
> should be on option on the command that you would need to set (i.e. it
> should not be automatically generated).
>
> John Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 02/08/2005 08:43:00 AM:
>
> >
> > Hi Folk,
> >
> > I remember a long time ago a small debate about having WSD2Ws
> > generate Gnu make files? I think this is wierd and I remember some
> > people objecting previously. However, Do we test this today? If not
> > then I suggest remove this function on the basis that we're just
> > making more rope to hang ourselves with?
> >
> > I've certainly not seen anyone on the mailng list using this?
> >
> > thoughts?
> >
> > cheers
> > John.
>
>
