On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 15:15 -0600, you wrote:
> > CAF headers are included in public broker headers.
>
> Good point, I didn't remember that, it does complicate the situation.
Yeah, same here, I didn't think about that part either, it's
definitely a concern. Not immediately sure if there's a
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Dominik Charousset
wrote:
> CAF headers are included in public broker headers.
Good point, I didn't remember that, it does complicate the situation.
Though maybe it's still only more a problem for the less common
use-case of
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Robin Sommer wrote:
>> I was wondering the other day if we could add CAF as submodule to
>> Broker
I can understand where you’re coming from. Dependency management in C++ is
lackluster, to say the least. However, baking CAF into Broker in this
Sounds like everybody likes this idea. Jon, want to take a stab at it?
Seems like something we should do before merging the branch into
master so that we get everybody gets on the right track right away.
Let's try the the static library approach: link CAF statically into
libbroker. I'm not 100%
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Robin Sommer wrote:
> I was wondering the other day if we could add CAF as submodule to
> Broker
Sounds fine to me. Also means one less variable (CAF version) to get
under control when troubleshooting/debugging reported issues.
- Jon
On 13 Feb 2018, at 8:36, Seth Hall wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2018, at 11:31, Robin Sommer wrote:
>
>> We could even go a step further and compile CAF statically into
>> libbroker, so that in the end from a user's perspective all they deal
>> with is Broker: if they link against it, they get everything
> On Feb 13, 2018, at 11:36 AM, Seth Hall wrote:
>
>
>
> On 13 Feb 2018, at 11:31, Robin Sommer wrote:
>
>> We could even go a step further and compile CAF statically into
>> libbroker, so that in the end from a user's perspective all they deal
>> with is Broker: if they
On 13 Feb 2018, at 11:31, Robin Sommer wrote:
> We could even go a step further and compile CAF statically into
> libbroker, so that in the end from a user's perspective all they deal
> with is Broker: if they link against it, they get everything they
> need.
>
> Would that make sense?
I think
I was wondering the other day if we could add CAF as submodule to
Broker, and then just start compiling it along with everything else. A
long time ago we decided generally against shipping dependencies along
with Bro, but in this case it might make people's lives quite a bit
easier, as hardly any