Re: [cmake-developers] daemon-mode meeting last Tuesday

Tobias Hunger wrote: > Hello CMake Developers, > > Stephen Kelly and me met last Tuesday to talk about the daemon-mode patch > we both have been working on. It was a very productive meeting: We managed > to resolve almost all the differences of opinion we had. Thanks Tobias for the summary and

Re: [cmake-developers] daemon-mode meeting last Tuesday

Hi Brad, Am 27.06.2016 7:18 nachm. schrieb "Brad King" : > I will take care of making libuv available within CMake's implementation > prior to merging the server mode work. See the "libuv in cmake" branch > of this thread. Perfect. Sorry, I only noticed the other thread

Re: [cmake-developers] daemon-mode meeting last Tuesday

On 06/27/2016 11:49 AM, Tobias Hunger wrote: > Brad, Daniel: You both mentioned wanting to use libuv. Is somebody > already looking into merging this into cmake? So far I just link > against the library and am done with it... > > Stephen said 3rd party libraries would need to be checked into

Re: [cmake-developers] daemon-mode meeting last Tuesday

He everybody, sorry, I am currently not making the progress I want. Qt Creator has feature freeze coming up and I need to push some patches and fix some bugs. Brad, Daniel: You both mentioned wanting to use libuv. Is somebody already looking into merging this into cmake? So far I just link

Re: [cmake-developers] daemon-mode meeting last Tuesday

On 06/23/2016 05:19 PM, Tobias Hunger wrote: > I'll create a task to rename it to "server" then. Sounds good. >> Would each type of query have a known type of response? > > It has a type: "reply" (or "error"). I so far use the inReplyTo field to > specify what the request a reply refers to.

Re: [cmake-developers] daemon-mode meeting last Tuesday

On 06/24/2016 11:43 AM, Daniel Pfeifer wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016, Tobias Hunger wrote: So you opt for enabling the cmake-server to switch between different build directories? >>> >>> Clients who need this feature could simply restart the server in the >>> new directory. >> >> yes,

Re: [cmake-developers] daemon-mode meeting last Tuesday

On 06/23/2016 04:48 PM, Ben Boeckel wrote: > cmake-oracle sounds reasonable for what it's doing to me. That name conflicts with a well-known vendor behind a platform on which CMake runs so IMO would be confusing. -Brad -- Powered by www.kitware.com Please keep messages on-topic and check the

Re: [cmake-developers] daemon-mode meeting last Tuesday

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Tobias Hunger wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Daniel Pfeifer > wrote: Currently cmake-gui supports switching generators, build trees, etc., so there is some precedent for such

Re: [cmake-developers] daemon-mode meeting last Tuesday

Hi Daniel, On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Daniel Pfeifer wrote: >>> Currently cmake-gui supports switching generators, build trees, etc., so >>> there is some precedent for such switching within a single process. If >>> we have (re-)initialization bugs they should

Re: [cmake-developers] daemon-mode meeting last Tuesday

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Tobias Hunger wrote: > Hi Brad, > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Brad King wrote: >>> * This is currently used to set sourcedirectory, builddirectory and >>> generator. >>> >>> These three should be

Re: [cmake-developers] daemon-mode meeting last Tuesday

Hi Brad, On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Brad King wrote: >> * This is currently used to set sourcedirectory, builddirectory and >> generator. >> >> These three should be passed in via the command line instead, again >> to avoid trouble with users switching

Re: [cmake-developers] daemon-mode meeting last Tuesday

Hallo Daniel, On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Daniel Pfeifer wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Tobias Hunger wrote: >> * We both think it only makes sense to merge the infrastructure part into >> cmake (if it passes review first of

Re: [cmake-developers] daemon-mode meeting last Tuesday

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Tobias Hunger wrote: > * We both think it only makes sense to merge the infrastructure part into > cmake (if it passes review first of course) once we have some > functionality > that is genuinely useful. So we want to aim at having

Re: [cmake-developers] daemon-mode meeting last Tuesday

Hi Rolf, Am 23.06.2016 23:00 schrieb "Rolf Eike Beer" : > What about just passing --server-fd= into it? That way the client can set > up whatever if wants to pass there and CMake has nothing to do with any setup. > And if one really wants to get messy one could pass a tty there.

Re: [cmake-developers] daemon-mode meeting last Tuesday

Hi Ben, Am 23.06.2016 22:48 schrieb "Ben Boeckel" : > cmake-oracle sounds reasonable for what it's doing to me. I hope this thing will provide information more reliable than e.g. the Oracle of Delphi in ancient Greece:-) Best Regards, Tobias -- Powered by

Re: [cmake-developers] daemon-mode meeting last Tuesday

Am 23.06.2016 22:46 schrieb "Brad King" : > > On 06/23/2016 08:27 AM, Tobias Hunger wrote: > Great! Thanks for the detailed summary of the meeting and status of the design. You are welcome. > > * Some names could be improved. Suggestions welcome. > > We'll cover these

Re: [cmake-developers] daemon-mode meeting last Tuesday

> 1.1 Communication: > > * Clients should talk to daemon mode via a socket (libuv supports that), > but we also want to support stdin/stdout at least for a "debug mode" * > There should be a separate command line switch to start stdin/out mode and > for socket mode > * This is needed

Re: [cmake-developers] daemon-mode meeting last Tuesday

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 16:46:48 -0400, Brad King wrote: > On 06/23/2016 08:27 AM, Tobias Hunger wrote: > > * Figure out whether a PDB file is actually going to be build. Currently > > the PDB file is added to the list of artifacts whenever there is a .lib > > file, which is probably

Re: [cmake-developers] daemon-mode meeting last Tuesday

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 16:46:48 -0400, Brad King wrote: > On 06/23/2016 08:27 AM, Tobias Hunger wrote: > > * Some names could be improved. Suggestions welcome. > > We'll cover these in more detail during review. The most important name is > the name of the feature, and IMO "daemon" is not an

Re: [cmake-developers] daemon-mode meeting last Tuesday

On 06/23/2016 08:27 AM, Tobias Hunger wrote: > Stephen Kelly and me met last Tuesday to talk about the daemon-mode patch we > both have been working on. It was a very productive meeting: We managed to > resolve almost all the differences of opinion we had. Great! Thanks for the detailed summary

[cmake-developers] daemon-mode meeting last Tuesday

Hello CMake Developers, Stephen Kelly and me met last Tuesday to talk about the daemon-mode patch we both have been working on. It was a very productive meeting: We managed to resolve almost all the differences of opinion we had. Here is a short summary of what we talked about: 0) General   *