Fedotov, Alexei A wrote:
Geir,
I tried this preprocessor staff for Java in my previous life. From my
experience the maintenance effort is higher for this solution than for
Source Control.
We use SVN. How do you propose to do it cleanly in SVN?
1. I faced first time how slow regular expressions on Java could be.
2. Perl worked fine but no one around me could understand my
pre-processing scripts and maintain them.
3. The girl from Ireland beat my clever scripts with Sun's TeamWare and
text editor.
+1 for Source Control
With best regards,
Alexei Fedotov,
Intel Java & XML Engineering
-----Original Message-----
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 12:28 PM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [classlib] Preprocessor
Tim Ellison wrote:
Mikhail Fursov wrote:
What are the reasons to exclude the most standard solution here:
branching.
Do you think we need a lot of them?
I don't think we are excluding any option for maintaining similar
code
streams (5.0 & 6.0, SE & ME, etc.) it's just a discussion at the
moment.
Similarly, I'm not advocating the use of aspects for maintaining
different code streams; but rather I was saying that IDE support is
likely going to be a requirement for any technology (apt,
preprocessor,
post-processing, aspects, ...) that we choose to solve the problem.
I'm sure we wouldn't even want simple branching without a decent
merge
tool to keep things in sync.
Yes - that's what I'm scared of. A branch solution sounds like it
leads to much misery and woe, because i think all the factors that make
this such an interesting problem for which a pre-processor is a valid
solution this implies the requirement of some kind of conditional merge
I agree with Geir that we should endeavour to choose a technology
that
has broad tooling support.
Regards,
Tim
