A couple of questions: What do you see going into --enable-most-extensions? My own view would be CPP, Axis2 and one of the scripting languages to give a good view of what SCACPP can do. Alternatively, it could check for certain environment variables on the system (e.g. AXIS2C_HOME, PYTHON_HOME) and only compile those extensions that have the required variable defined.
Should we follow the Java side of things and release binaries containing different groups of extensions? As Simon says, the runtime only loads and uses dlls it finds and needs to use, so releasing a single binary with all the libraries in it should be OK. Currently we have no libraries that clash (like Java does with the Axis and Celtix binding.ws implementations), but when we do I guess we'll either have to release different binaries, or have some installation process where the user chooses which particular extension is to be used. Cheers Andy On 9/13/06, Andrew Borley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yep, +1 from me too. If we have a command line build again for Windows (the one that was released with M1 has lapsed), we could implement something like this in a .bat file pretty easily. Andy On 9/13/06, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/13/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > As we add more extensions to our runtime, I think it would be a good > > idea to add feature configuration options to our Linux build, to allow > > > people to build just a subset when they are not interested in a > specific > > feature and/or do not have the pre-req software for it on their > machine. > > > > If you define features to Automake you can then use the following > > configure options: > > configure --enable-FEATURE > > configure --disable-FEATURE > > > > We could have > > configure --enable-all-extensions > > configure --enable-most-extensions > > configure --enable-cpp > > configure --enable-axis2 > > configure --enable-php > > configure --enable-python > > configure --enable-ruby > > etc. as more extensions get added... > > > > What do you think? > > > > Any similar thoughts for the Windows build? > > > > -- > > Jean-Sebastien > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Good idea. +1 for me on this. The windows (MSVC) build is separated > already > so there is a project per extension. I believe the runtime only loads > dll it > finds so if you haven't built a particular extension it won't try and > load > it. > > S > >
