Mailing-List: contact lucy-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: lucy-dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20100106032102.GA19664@rectangular.com>
References: <20100105224719.GA15135@rectangular.com>
	 <4B43F3A5.1050402@peknet.com> <20100106032102.GA19664@rectangular.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 09:55:14 -0800
Message-ID: <65d3176c1001070955v79ccd1efy402d9886a3f6b35e@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Lucy] Monolithic Charmonizer files
From: Nathan Kurz <nate@verse.com>
To: lucy-dev@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com> wr=
ote:
>> I.e., why would I want to build Charmonizer as a standalone entity?
>
> Right now, just for the sake of hacking on Charmonizer in isolation. =C2=
=A0It's a
> little weird that in order to build Charmonizer, you need the build scrip=
t for
> Lucy's Perl bindings -- that threw off Nate.

Actually, I was (and am) just generally having computer problems.  My
laptop hard drive has been dying a prolonged death, the desktop has
random lock ups when I install all the RAM, etc.  I didn't actually
have problems compiling per-se, but I didn't feel I could test what
I'd done well enough to check it in.  A simple 'make test' option was
what felt most lacking.

I'm pro-Makefile, and would be happy to write a simple one that should
work fine with GCC.  I'm not against a single file solution, though.
For a simple configuration system that's designed to be integrated
into other build systems, it might be a good choice.

In addition to SQLite, dlmalloc might be a good single-file
role-model: <http://g.oswego.edu/dl/html/malloc.html>.   Still might
be worth having a tiny Makefile even for the single file solution,
though.

Nathan Kurz
nate@verse.com