On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 15:34 -0400, Darryl L. Pierce wrote: > 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.
I don't think committing generated code to the repository is a good idea (but I could be convinced). Why do want to do this? Andrew --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
