Re: [certi-dev] C++ 1516 Binding

[Eric Noulard]

2010/3/22 Ijperen, Jeroen van <address@hidden>:
> Hi Eric,
>
>> From: Eric Noulard
>> >> Is there any "global" estimate when these changes (the use of the
>> generated code)
>> >> will have settled?
>> >
>> > Soon :-)
>>
>> Soon is now.
>
> Glad to hear it! I will update today, after I settle my own changes. :)

Beware that there is a lot of changes thus for this kind of update
it's usually a good idea to generate a patch containing your modifications
(cvs diff -u should do the job). then update.

That way if a lot of unresolved merge takes place it may be easier to
checkout a  new fresh tree then selectively apply the previous patch.

>> Did you began your work on 1516?
>> if you don't please tell us when you start.
>> I may help you a little bit for speeding you up with the initial
>> CMake machinery enable multi-lib (1.3, 1516) compile.
>
> I fiddled around a bit with the CMake files, and it now generates projects 
> for RTIA1516, libRTI1516 and (Lib/Test)FedTime1516, including some build 
> defines.

OK that's good start.

>> If you did try to keep us informed of your progress
>> and try to keep your working tree up to date.
>> or keep two trees and monitor the changes others do in parallel.
>>
> Currently I just import your changes through CVS, but I
> can post back my changes if you (all) would like that.

We usually review some patches before authorizing "direct" commit :-)

What I can propose you is the following,

1) Register a Savannah account (if you do not already have one)

2) Request your inclusion in the CERTI project
     I let you in and assign you the task concerning 1516 I've just opened:
     https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/index.php?10290

3) When appropriate attach a patch proposal to the task.

Using this way of work everybody (including me) may follow your work
and try the patches you will propose without potentially breaking thing in CVS.

In the beginning I'll merge your patches myself and commit and when
we (CERTI admin and you) are confident that you can commit alone
we will let you do it.

Would this way of working be OK for you?

> Current implementation doesn't do anything useful yet, but it's the 
> groundwork. (Handles, Exceptions, empty Ambassador implementation, 
> AmbassadorFactory.)

If you are OK with the previous way of working, just do it and attach
a first patch containing
those changes.

-- 
Erk
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org