[cmake-developers] daemon-mode meeting last Tuesday

[Brad King]

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. Stephen thinks that is not
> necessary as there is always one request in flight and the client can just
> figure things out without additional information.

Okay.  If the field makes debugging or other use cases easier I see no reason
not to include it.

>> Also, doesn't the cookie allow the query/response pairs to be matched?
> 
> In theory yes. But a protocol should work without having to reply on cookies.

Yes, I see.

> The header currently is the type, inReplyTo and the cookie. I did not see
> the need to separate those.

Okay.  This may be easier to review in context when the time comes.

>> 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 simply be fixed.
> 
> So you think we should keep that?

No.  See response in another branch of this thread.

>> I'm not sure we have that information.  IIRC CMake only adds settings to the
>> generated build system to tell the tools where to put the .pdb and what to
>> call it if it happens to be created.
> 
> I think CMake should know what is generated and should not leave decisions
> like that up to generators.

Yes, but that will take some additional investigation and work to achieve.
CMake will have to be taught more about which tools/platforms actually
produce the .pdb files.  They are not first-class artifacts in CMake's
model right now.

> I like "cmakeInputs"

Sounds good.

Thanks,
-Brad