I personally like CMake over ant. Question we need to ask is "Do we need to have dependency on Java and Java libraries to build a C project?", my answer is no. On the other hand if someone really wants to come up with an ant build should we stop them? I don't know. In general, I didn't have any issues with the current build system.
thanks, Dinesh. -- Be happy On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Giorgio Zoppi <[email protected]> wrote: > I will do the effort for moving to CMake. > > 2015-07-13 20:05 GMT+02:00 Nadir Amra <[email protected]>: > >> I guess I prefer to use existing ant-based testing framework. I do not >> know why we should spend time doing something from scratch. >> >> Plus is the other frameworks portable (I mean can run on IBM i from my >> point of view). Same with build. >> >> I will take a look at the frameworks but I am not hopeful. >> >> Not sure why you are against ant? It is proven to be portable. >> >> >> >> >> Giorgio Zoppi <[email protected]> wrote on 07/13/2015 12:55:31 PM: >> >> > From: Giorgio Zoppi <[email protected]> >> > To: Apache AXIS C Developers List <[email protected]> >> > Date: 07/13/2015 12:55 PM >> > Subject: Re: Discussion - moving forward with Axis2/C >> > >> > Recap: >> > Priority 1: add Google Test Framework to the code base. >> > https://meekrosoft.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/unit-testing-c-code- >> > with-the-googletest-framework/ >> > Or if we expirence issue with cmockery is fine. http:// >> > cmockery.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/doc/index.html >> > 1. Implement and use lcov and gcov in the current base. >> > 2, I am against ant, i prefer cmake and it is supported as well >> > everywhere. Introduce CMake as build tool. >> > 3. Fix bugs >> > 4. Start from 1.6.0 removing features and reduce code base. >> > >> > The task of this week for my side is to create an excel as sprint >> > plan, collecting all bugs present 1.6 and removal options and things >> > might nice to introduce. >> > Then each one of use should estimate how much time and give me a >> deadline. >> > We will start with priority 1 if you agree (introduce a test framework). >> > Best Regards, >> > Giorgio. >> > >> > 2015-07-13 19:35 GMT+02:00 Dinesh Weerapurage <[email protected]>: >> > Nadir, >> >> > Please see my comments inline. >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Nadir Amra <[email protected]> wrote: >> > My goals, in no order of priority: >> > >> > (1) Fix bugs >> > (2) Add support for pluggable XML parser. Not sure why this was not >> > done from the beginning since this allows for utmost flexibility >> > using proven parsers >> > >> > We already have abstracted XML parser layer and have implemented >> > both libxml2 and Guththila parser wrappers using this layer. >> > >> > thanks, >> > Dinesh. >> > >> >> > >> > -- >> > Quiero ser el rayo de sol que cada día te despierta >> > para hacerte respirar y vivir en me. >> > "Favola -Moda". >> > > > > -- > Quiero ser el rayo de sol que cada día te despierta > para hacerte respirar y vivir en me. > "Favola -Moda". >
