>> Given http://logging.apache.org/log4cxx/building/ant.html, I'd >> personally lean towards Ant-based being our Windows option (instead of >> distributing vendor-specific project files). > > Does this mean we should remove the already present project files in > favor of ant only?
If people agree with supporting Ant-only, then yes. However, it sounds like at least you (Thorsten) and Florian would like IDE project files. If that's what you all would prefer, please go for it. I'm personally leery of IDE-specific builds based on old Java-projects-in-Eclipse experience-- the builds always seem finicky to get working and exceedingly brittle. Also, debugging someone else's GUI usage via mailing list is unpleasant. > Using the IDE specific project files we are more flexible > with compiler/IDE-specific changes to the produced binary, too, like > code optimizations only available for some compilers or whatever. If there's compiler-specific magic that we genuinely want, I'd prefer improving Apache Ant to obtain that magic instead of setting some binary flag in a version-and-vendor-specific file format. Though, I'll admit my background is biased as I've zero experience working with libraries within modern IDEs on Windows. I'm admittedly a ./configure && make && make install junky with a tendency to push/pull compiler-specific magic to/from the Autoconf Macro Archive. > One of the first things I planned to do was to review our project > files and the standard build process for log4cxx to see how I may > contribute those or adopt them to the standard build by starting from > scratch with a not so widespread compiler. That sounds very worthwhile. Perhaps we should kick off a new thread what environments each of us anticipates being able to use for development/support... - Rhys
