OK. That's pretty conclusive. I'll raise a JIRA for it and implement option 2.
Geoff. On 30/08/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Simon Laws wrote: > On 8/30/06, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On 30/08/06, Andrew Borley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > On 8/30/06, Geoffrey Winn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > <snip>. Using the Apache stdcxx library instead would provide >> > >> > > us with a number of benefits >> > >> > >> > Agreed. +1 for this. >> >> >> yup! >> >> The one difficulty is that once SDO links against the stdcxx library >> then >> > > all users of SDO must also do so. I think this gives us two options >> > > >> > > 1. Just do it, and live with the consequences. In this case we will >> (one >> > > way >> > > or another) pre-req stdcxx on all platforms, and all users of SDO >> for >> > C++ >> > > will be required to use stdcxx as their C++ standard library. >> > > >> > > 2. Create a build time switch that chooses between whatever the >> platform >> > > offers (ie the current arrangement) and stdcxx. Presumably >> defaulting >> to >> > > the >> > > current arrangement. >> > > >> > > I prefer option 2 but obviously it somewhat complicates our build >> > process >> > > and perhaps more seriously adds another complication to our test >> cases. >> > > >> > > What does the team think? >> >> >> My preference is also for option 2 as it gives our users more choice. >> > However, we may find ourselves #ifdef-ing chunks of code out to get >> around >> > the aforementioned differences in libraries (see Pete's map problem on >> > Windows yesterday..) which will make code less readable, etc. I think >> > starting this with the SDO codebase is a good idea, as this is a >> > relatively >> > standalone set of code, and will give us a good idea what the >> issues are >> > with this approach. >> >> >> Defintiely option 2! >> >> A side question - SDO has a couple of pre-reqs (libxml2, etc) - will >> these >> > need to be rebuilt against stdcxx as well? >> >> >> libxml2 is C rather than c++ so I don't think this is an issue. Same for >> Axis2C for the sdo_axiom utility. >> >> Cheers, >> >> -- >> Pete > > > > Generall I +1 the move to stdcxx and specifically to option 2 because... > > In PHP SDO land, which of course uses Tuscany SDO, we tend to have faily > autonomous builds, i.e. we expect our users to be able to download the > SDO > package and build it without having to download too much other stuff. At > least other stuff that isn't already known to the PHP build system . We > already depend on libxml2, iconv & zlib but these are generally > available in > linux at stable versions. If we add a mandatory dependency on the apache > incubator version of stdxx then we have added another barrier to entry as > there is another packge to download that people may not be familiar > with and > may cause clashes with other extensions that use other solutions. We > won't > know until we try it. It may also cause problems for the automatic > windows > build that takes place on the PECL servers outside of our control. I > don't > really know the details of this though so would have to look into it. > > Simon > +1 for option 2 as well. -- Jean-Sebastien --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
