Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-celix-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-celix-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8FE3410C6B for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:38:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 1082 invoked by uid 500); 5 Nov 2013 21:38:42 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-celix-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 1059 invoked by uid 500); 5 Nov 2013 21:38:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact celix-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: celix-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list celix-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 1051 invoked by uid 99); 5 Nov 2013 21:38:41 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 21:38:41 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of a.broekhuis@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.48 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.216.48] (HELO mail-qa0-f48.google.com) (209.85.216.48) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 21:38:36 +0000 Received: by mail-qa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id w8so1437738qac.14 for ; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 13:38:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=A0F9+KVywPvH89ZRFoYTeYuCYYHS14nIZuD10vwgNik=; b=j1NPrqLJMhf39A8t1U8+KFQcQG7s1169H0UbSXUzu8Aus2QgZri7tta2Kf5WyseO9d MA7hMKdk/0yaPCGiEBXOUYluOPcqETfjYqPuRKrlAKyOM//QEfzqZ4W6pLA2kH/JtYlz YALsMAOjWQXawI7OidtTDTnz/ihoxCvid/5/EvHl1t0eaai+uGqWmINh4ic6kRe5V7nQ TSHqIHhADZzNnO5n89WCDttprQgvG2ES8LZ7bmnn7lQt3H6SVolGr1t04ACVTV24fKGN fMtAdngXcZo9dry2Tn+jFZgWLzfTxcGRuI4eITT1PBIR8Iw7o6z1XBO7i3e5tnQ+2TTy 0H8g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.49.50.232 with SMTP id f8mr32755596qeo.63.1383687495724; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 13:38:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.96.158.38 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 13:38:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 22:38:15 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [jira] [Updated] (CELIX-90) add additional build options for RSA components From: Alexander Broekhuis To: celix-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc0d20a9b75704ea74d9a6 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --047d7bdc0d20a9b75704ea74d9a6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi all, This patch looks good, it might be worthwhile to do the same for other parts of the build (examples etc). A drawback of the current solution (not introduced by this patch) is that "deployments" don't have any dependencies. Adding dependencies to them (as done in the patch) will result in configuration errors. This is because the dependencies mechanism only works one way, ie, when cmake parses the files it can silently enable projects if they aren't processed. Hence the reversed order in the top level cmake file. Since deployments can only be made after all the targets have been processed, deployments can never silently enable dependencies. At the moment this is "solved" by giving the subproject more dependencies, eg not only dependencies required for compilation, but also the ones needed for deployment. This is not the best solution, it is not obvious why those dependencies are needed, and with this patch it becomes more obvious. A workaround for this is to add a "fake/empty" subproject as part of the top subproject (in the patch that would be the RSA_BUNDLES). This fake subproject can then be used in the deploy file as check using is_enabled(..). So for the RSA the following subprojects are created: - RSA -- RSA_DEPLOY_EXAMPLE_BONJOUR // Only has deploy dependencies (it builds nothing) -- RSA_DEPLOY_EXAMPLE_SLP // Only has deploy dependencies (it builds nothing) -- RSA_TOPOLOGY_MANAGER // Only has build dependencies -- RSA_RSA // Only has build dependencies -- RSA_DISCOVERY_SLP // Only has build dependencies -- RSA_DISCOVERY_BONJOUR // Only has build dependencies -- RSA_EXAMPLE // Only has build dependencies Do others have an opinion on this? 2013/11/5 Bjoern Petri (JIRA) > > [ > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CELIX-90?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel] > > Bjoern Petri updated CELIX-90: > ------------------------------ > > Attachment: rsaCmakeBuildOptions.patch > > > add additional build options for RSA components > > ----------------------------------------------- > > > > Key: CELIX-90 > > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CELIX-90 > > Project: Celix > > Issue Type: Improvement > > Affects Versions: 0.0.1-incubating > > Reporter: Bjoern Petri > > Attachments: rsaCmakeBuildOptions.patch > > > > > > As discussed with Alexander, I created a patch which allows to enable > the Remote Service Admin Bundles in general as well as the single RSA > components. This allows me to build the Remote Services Admin without > having e.g. a bonjour dependency. > > For now I stumble over the problem that I can enable the deployment of > the calculator example including the discovery_bonjour component but > disable the build of the discovery_bonjour component itself. > > Although the dependency to the discovery_slp is added in the deployment > configuration it cannot be enabled (and therefore integrated) anymore as > the deployment takes place in the very last step. > > > > -- > This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA > (v6.1#6144) > -- Met vriendelijke groet, Alexander Broekhuis --047d7bdc0d20a9b75704ea74d9a6--