RE: [DotGNU]IDE questions

[David Sugar]

This to me would be fairly ideal.  I have no objection to the project
having it's own special (editable, perhaps XML based) project file so long
as the source package I create and distribute still has a normal and
usable "configure" and make system as well :).  Having it work with an
existing (mature) package that already use automake and have configure
scripts in place is also very useful.  I do not wish to change the way my
distributions build just because my IDE wants to do it differently or
to have to manually keep two systems in sync :).

On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Yonas Jongkind wrote:

> Would it not be possible to create the "best of both worlds"?
>
> One could create a binary that reads a binary XML project file, and then
> update the xxx_SOURCES (+ etc) for automake into the makefile.am. Then in
> the makefile.am add a rule that makes the makefile.am dependant on the .XML
> project file.
>
> Then the IDE can store it's stuff, and the make system can store it's stuff.
> I wouldn't want the makefile cluttered with all of the IDE stuff. Further
> there is some stuff you want to be able to type directly into the
> makefile.am.
>
> Yonas.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden
> Behalf Of David Sugar
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 5:59 AM
> To: S11001001
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [DotGNU]IDE questions
>
> Yes, this was exactly my original point :).  The idea of having an XML
> project file is not bad in of itself, but the build tools should
> integrate with those that are already commonly used.
>
> Similarly, autoconf and automake and make should be aware of what a C#
> (and Java, for that matter) source file is, and how to build it, with
> default make rules, etc.  Having a csant as Rhy's suggests is also
> certainly very useful for people doing new projects and pure C#
> projects, but if one is mixing some C# within a larger C/C++ project,
> having our traditional build tools support this easily and automatically
> would be very useful as well.
>
> S11001001 wrote:
>
> > Tomislav Sajdl wrote:
> >
> >> files, which is problem. What about idea to define in advance project
> >> file
> >> format for DotGNU? I would suggest it to be XML based. If we define
> >> all tags
> >
> >
> > Mr. Sugar's mention of this was in the context of his complaint about
> > the development of _any_ special project file, XML or not. His
> > original post said:
> >
> > <<When one talks about IDE's in general, what I have always wanted was
> > something that integrated well with existing tools and practices.  Just
> > about every IDE I have ever seen insists on it's own specially formatted
> > "project file". What I would like is something that supports
> > autoconf/automake based build trees as we normally do them rather than a
> > foriegn project build format.>>
> >
> > I totally agree with him on this point; I would like to see a
> > development environment that only uses existing files; there seems to
> > be enough information in existing build systems to build & coordinate
> > a project, so why not rely on those files alone?
> >
> > The closest he got to any sort of project file, XML included, was the
> > mention of a /minimal/ project file that contained /minimal/ information.
> >
> > Also, I would like to vote down the term 'IDE', as this implies a
> > single program? The GDE (graphical development environment project, as
> > I am calling it in the tasklist) will hopefully be quite different and
> > more tolerable by experienced developers than 'IDE's.
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://subscribe.dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
>
> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://subscribe.dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
>
>