Trying again more directly. Sorry for the chattiness. Is there a good way to allow users to set properties on projects that generators can read.
I was thinking to use standardized global properties e.g.) <Project Name>_VS_SCC_LOCALPATH, however the existing properties like this ( <projectname>_SOURCE_DIR and <projectname>_BINARY_DIR ) are implicitly read-only. Would there be a reason to avoid my proposal? Thanks, Steven On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Steven Velez <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > > We have noticed, that using the VS_SCC_* target properties, we can > bind to a perforce SCM server. However, the way that SCC works the > perforce plugin has to prompt the user for connection information. > When we were doing this with hand-made visual studio solutions, we > would only be prompted once when the workspace was fresh and clean, > and the information would be retained thereafter. With our > CMake-generated solutions, we are prompted on every invocation of > visual studio. We'd like to get back to the fewer prompts workflow. > > After much research and trial and error, we have discovered that this > seems to be because the bindings created by cmake are stored in the > visual studio project files...and only there. It seems that a more > complete binding also records some SCC-related properties in the > solution file... > > Therefore, I started hacking on the visual studio generator to try and > decipher how this functionality would be added to cmake, and made good > progress. However, there are some solution file properties related to > SCC that must be recorded for the solution itself. For most entries, > I can just query the targets' VS_SCC_ properties, but there are no > such properties for the solution/project. What's more, is there is > no existing precedent, that I can find, for user-specified project > properties. So I am not sure how I would be able to give the user > control over what these properties may be. In my scenario, with the > perforce SCC plugin, I _could_ get the necessary properties form the > first target, but I doubt this is the general solution otherwise there > is simply too much redundancy in the protocol/format. > > Long question short... is there an existing, reliable way for the user > to provide per-project properties that the generator can get at? > > Thanks, > Steven > -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
