Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to sales@march-hare.com.
>> not the CM system. Yes I do believe we need a better open source build >> system - there is no equivalent for things like 'clearmake' in the FOSS >> world and there should be. Forgive my lack of knowledge, but what is clearmake and how does it relate to the issue? > Late identification is really the solution for Java too - but since the > 'Java' spec and compilers are rather fixed in their ways I suspect we just > have to be pragmatic and do something that can support the 'broken' way > they already work (there is no 'clearjavac' for good reason). The ideal > result would be if a member of the Java compiler team wanted to add > support for late identifiction - that'd be terrific! It just takes a > single call to an API to resolve every reference like > eric.functional.Example into either eric.functional.Example (the default) > or eric.test.TestExample etc based on rules the plugin used in the API > knows about (eg: an SCM system that knows about the > context/branch/usecase). Chances of this happening I think are about > equal to me winning the jackpot in the lottery when I don't actually buy a > ticket... I'm not entirely sure what "late identification" is, but I really don't see the Java spec changing anytime soon. The whole concept of class /file naming is pretty much a building block for the language, and while it seems incredibly strange to non-Java coders, once you get into it, it actually tends to make things a lot easier to work with. Coming from a C/C++ background myself, I found the whole concept incredibly bizarre when I first started in Java, but soon got quite accustomed to it. It is a case of the language imposing a certain organization and structure to the coder. Late identification also won't address other interpreted languages (such as HTML) where filenames / locations are critical to proper functionality. > All that said - the reason we had such a long discussion on > c.s.config-mgmt about build was that the CM terminology and some of the > reasoning behind 'clearmake' and other commercial CM/build systems was not > clear to me until you and some others explained it (which if you may > recall took quite a lot of iterations), so I can't fault Gerhard or Eric > or anyone else for not picking up on it. Is there a thread somewhere that I can catch up on this conversation? Thanks, Eric