On 12/04/2011 12:44 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:

On 11/29/2011 04:32 PM, Brar Piening wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:

Some minor nitpicks:

Do we really need to create all those VSnnnnProject.pm and VSnnnnSolution.pm files? They are all always included anyway. Why not just stash all the packages in Solution.pm and Project.pm?
We certainly don't *need* them.
Having different files separates the tasks of generating different target file formats into different source files. In my opinion this makes it easier to find the code that is actually generating the files that get used in a specific build environment. While the VSnnnnSolution.pm and VC200nProject.pm files are indeed not much more than stubs that could eventually be extended in future (and probably never will) VC2010Project.pm contains the whole code for generating the new file format which would significantly bloat up the code in Project.pm that currently contains the common code for generating the old file formats.

Anyhow - this is just my opinion and my intention is to help improving the Windows build process and not forcing my design into the project.

Well, I do also dislike the asymmetry of it. Here's what I suggest: for the Solution files, we'll just put the object packages in Solution.pm. There really doesn't seem like any need for those to have tiny files on their own. For the Project files, factor out the 2005/2008 specific parts from Project.pm into a new file, and have a new file for the equivalent parts of your new VC2010Project.pm. Then we'll add packages to Project.pm to create objects just like I'm suggesting above for Solution.pm. The result is then more symmetrical and we'll have three new files instead of seven (counting VSObjectFactory.pm).

Perhaps, too, this has all got sufficiently complicated that adding some descritpion of what's going on here to README would be in order. I suspect some of my fellow committers tend to look at the whole thing and scratch their heads a bit, and that means expecting other people to make sense if it is probably a bit much ;-)

In the absence of reaction to this I've marked the patch as "waiting on author", but if/when I have time I'll work on rearranging things as above.



Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to