On 01/12/2016 05:36 PM, Milian Wolff wrote: > Also, while above you say there are two orthogonal features (which is > correct), there is an important fact that has not yet been stressed enough: > > The daemon approach of Stephen allows for the implementation of both. And both > of these features are crucial and important to have. [snip] On 01/12/2016 03:24 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote: > Yes. I count 3 orthogonal ways an IDE and cmake could 'interface': [snip] > a daemon and a declarative spec for the sources covers all three. [snip] > I can do development, but it would have to be as part of a collaborative > effort and collaborative future maintenance. [snip] > Yes. I'm trying to generate interest in people who are capable of joining > the effort, and interested in doing so. It is difficult :).
I think the responses in this thread have indicated there is interest in working toward the full daemon approach. Perhaps discussion should now proceed on the daemon protocol design over in the thread Tobias started on cmake-developers: cmake daemon mode protocol http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.programming.tools.cmake.devel/15424 Meanwhile some discussion of a possible declarative spec has started here: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.programming.tools.cmake.devel/15339/focus=15374 -Brad -- Powered by www.kitware.com Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more information on each offering, please visit: CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers