On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 03:24:52PM -0400, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 16:05 -0400, Darryl L. Pierce wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 02:11:51PM -0400, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > > > > The big benefit to this would be breaking the Cmake dependencies between > > > > the bindings and the cpp build tree. We could build them independently, > > > > which is a Good Thing (tm). > > > > > > I don't think you are really breaking any dependencies by moving code > > > around are you? The bindings will still depend on the c++ code where > > > ever it lives in the tree. > > > > What I was thinking was that, by moving the bindings out and then > > versioning the SWIG wrapper code we could build the individual language > > bindings separately rather than having to build all of Qpid to get them. > > I'm still not totally comfortable with the idea of versioning those > > wrappers. > > Could you explain what you mean by "versioning" in this context?
Generating a copy of the SWIG wrapper for that language and then commit it in git. -- Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc. Delivering value year after year. Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors. http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
pgpe721yG88Qf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
