The server is sending back code. I'd want to know I can trust whoever is
sending me back code that I plan to build and run locally.
Jim
> On Nov 19, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:28 AM Todd Fiala
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Zachary Turner wrote:
> Just to re-iterate, if we use the bindings as a service, then I envision
> checking the bindings in. This addresses a lot of the potential pitfalls
> you point out, such as the "oops, you can't hit the network, no
Some other points we need to consider on the bindings-as-service idea:
* The service should be exposed via secure connection (https/ssl/etc.)
This might already be guaranteed on the Google end by virtue of the
endpoint, but we'll want to make sure we can have a secure connection.
(This will be
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:50 AM Zachary Turner wrote:
> Well some of the bugfixes are actually worth mentioning, because we
> actually have bugs on the C++ side that we can't fix because then SWIG
> won't be able to process the header files. For example, if SWIG sees this
>
I don’t think so, this was just an embedded link to your hard drive:
file:///C:/tools/swigwin-3.0.7/Doc/Manual/Python.html#Python_builtin_types
Sean
> On Nov 19, 2015, at 10:51 AM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:50 AM
Well some of the bugfixes are actually worth mentioning, because we
actually have bugs on the C++ side that we can't fix because then SWIG
won't be able to process the header files. For example, if SWIG sees this
in a header file, it errors out and can't even proceed.
enum Foo : unsigned {
I wasn't planning on working on this immediately, but given the outcome of
the recent static bindings work, I can re-prioritize. I don't know how
long it will take, because honestly writing this kind of thing in Python is
new to me.. to make an understatement. But I'll get it done. Give me
Doh! lol
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:57 AM Sean Callanan wrote:
> I don’t think so, this was just an embedded link to your hard drive:
>
> file:///C:/tools/swigwin-3.0.7/Doc/Manual/Python.html#Python_builtin_types
>
> Sean
>
> On Nov 19, 2015, at 10:51 AM, Zachary Turner
Derp, I forgot C++11 support. Some of it is not useful to us given the
limited nature of the SB API, but certain things could be useful. Being
able to transition to enum classes is nice, for example.
Anyway, there's a lot here, so feel free to read through the document.
>> If so, does this mean everyone needs to generate a cert locally?
Generally not - as long as the server is dishing out something over https,
the server will be signed with a certificate that is going to be in the
local OS's set of trusted root certificates (particularly if this is
provided by
. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux
Foundation Collaborative Project
From: lldb-dev [mailto:lldb-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Zachary
Turner via lldb-dev
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 11:45 AM
To: Todd Fiala
Cc: LLDB
Subject: Re: [lldb-dev] bindings as service idea
Just
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 1:38 PM Ted Woodward
wrote:
> For our builds at QUIC, we're not interested in hitting an external server
> to get code. So we'd either hit the server when needed and check in the
> resultant bindings, or (preferably) use bindings from
Just to re-iterate, if we use the bindings as a service, then I envision
checking the bindings in. This addresses a lot of the potential pitfalls
you point out, such as the "oops, you can't hit the network, no build for
you" and the issue of production build flows not wanting to hit a third
party
Hey Zachary,
I think the time pressure has gotten the better of me, so I want to
apologize for getting snippy about the static bindings of late. I am
confident we will get to a good solution for removing that dependency, but
I can certainly wait for a solution (using an alternate approach in our
14 matches
Mail list logo