For a first pass it might be best to just follow what is in cmIDEFlagTable as 
this would largely be unintrusive and just get the architecture there.

That would look like

{  
   "library":[  
      {  
         "name":"ErrorReporting",
         "command":"ERRORREPORT:PROMPT",
         "comment":"PromptImmediately",
         "value":"PromptImmediately"
      },
      {  
         "name":"ErrorReporting",
         "command":"ERRORREPORT:QUEUE",
         "comment":"Queue For Next Login",
         "value":"QueueForNextLogin"
      }
      ..
   ]
}

Where flags would be optional.

Another option would actually group the values together.

{  
   "library":{  
      "ErrorReporting":{  
         "values":[  
            {  
               "command":"ERRORREPORT:PROMPT",
               "comment":"PromptImmediately",
               "value":"PromptImmediately"
            },
            {  
               "command":"ERRORREPORT:QUEUE",
               "comment":"Queue For Next Login",
               "value":"QueueForNextLogin"
            }
         ]
      }
   }
}

Again flags would be optional.

If there are not multiple values then it would look something like this.

{  
   "library":{  
      "AdditionalLibraryDirectories":{  
         "command":"LIBPATH:",
         "comment":"Additional Library Directories",
         "value":"",
         "flags":[  
            "UserValue",
            "SemicolonAppendable"
         ]
      }
   }
}

You could also do instead of flags a type. So "type": "StringList" which would 
then map the flags properly.

I'm up for whatever you think would be best. The first is certainly the most 
verbose but has a direct mapping. The rest end up requiring more of a 
transformation to get it into the current format.

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad King [mailto:brad.k...@kitware.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 11:31 AM
To: Olmstead, Don <don.olmst...@sony.com>
Cc: cmake-developers@cmake.org
Subject: Re: [cmake-developers] VS Toolchain Support

On 08/24/2016 02:25 PM, Olmstead, Don wrote:
> I would be interested in the JSON format. Do you have any opinions on 
> what that would look like or would you just like to see some 
> implementation before proceding?

Please propose a sample format.  Just take a few entries from one of the 
existing flag tables and manually convert it to some kind of JSON array of 
objects to post here for discussion.

Thanks,
-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

Reply via email to