[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