[cmake-developers] CMake Daemon

Stephen Kelly steveire at gmail.com
Tue Feb 9 18:44:55 EST 2016


Stephen Kelly wrote:

> Tamás Kenéz wrote:
> 
>> That's great and really does open a new world for IDEs!
> 
> Thanks! Let's see if the interest grows.
> 
> I've just pushed the daemon code here:
> 
>  https://github.com/steveire/cmake/tree/cmake-daemon

Tobias made a pull request there. Rather than review it there, I will review 
it here for visibility.

 https://github.com/steveire/CMake/pull/2

The branch is quite it hard to review, or even to see the particular 
changes, due to large commits and diff noise. If the Daemon reaches a level 
of completeness that it could be upstreamed (See 

 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.programming.tools.cmake.devel/15740

) then these commits (including all of my commits on the branch) would have 
to be rewritten, split, made reviewable etc making heavy use of `rebase -i`. 

In a way, we don't have to do that now, but I'm also not very enthusiastic 
about making the `cmake-daemon` branch commits unreadable. I would add your 
commits to the branch if they we split and in the appropriate place (eg, 
with the cmServerProtocol0_1 change early in the cmake-daemon branch).

The changes in your branch are good and useful to more than just QtCreator.

Things that I like in your branch:

* Explicit cmServerRequest and cmServerResponse APIs, which enforce the type 
and cookie consistency. 
* Returning cmServerResponse objects from the cmServerProtocol instead of 
invoking the server from the cmServerProtocol. 
* A way to version the protocol in a future-proof way with C++ classes.
* Implementation of daemon and protocol error messaging infrastructure. 
(Reporting errors from cmake code requires other refactoring: 
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.programming.tools.cmake.devel/15607/focus=15636)

So I think that is progress!

Thanks,

Steve.





More information about the cmake-developers mailing list