Naming Conventions for debug build???

4 messages Options
Embed this post
Permalink
UV wild

Naming Conventions for debug build???

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink
Hi,

in the mapguide project and elsewhere the debug versions of the
libraries have a d suffix in their names.
In the FDO build this is not the case.
Basically having different library versions with the same name on the
system seems not like a good way to go.
I noticed this as a factor in introducing additional configuration
problems into my developing system.

Is there a good reason to do it like this or is this just an unfinished
piece of configuration management and things have not been aligned
properly as yet ???

Any thoughts?


_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
Traian Stanev

RE: Naming Conventions for debug build???

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink

This way you can use a debug build of MapGuide against an installed or otherwise available release build of the FDO SDK. If the debug MapGuide linked to Fdod.dll instead of Fdo.dll, you would be forced to compile your own debug FDO in order to compile a debug MapGuide.


Traian


-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of UV
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:37 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [fdo-internals] Naming Conventions for debug build???

Hi,

in the mapguide project and elsewhere the debug versions of the
libraries have a d suffix in their names.
In the FDO build this is not the case.
Basically having different library versions with the same name on the
system seems not like a good way to go.
I noticed this as a factor in introducing additional configuration
problems into my developing system.

Is there a good reason to do it like this or is this just an unfinished
piece of configuration management and things have not been aligned
properly as yet ???

Any thoughts?


_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
UV wild

Re: Naming Conventions for debug build???

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink
Ah, you mean kind of hot swapping... Interesting idea.
Fair enough. It just gets a little bit confusing when you are actually
have the debug and release versions of each....
I did the hot swapping by moving Bin directories around.... and i got
really confused which FDO I was ending up with....
I like unix for the lib version  numbers in the filenames... thats so
much cleaner....

Thanks for the clarification.


Traian Stanev wrote:

> This way you can use a debug build of MapGuide against an installed or otherwise available release build of the FDO SDK. If the debug MapGuide linked to Fdod.dll instead of Fdo.dll, you would be forced to compile your own debug FDO in order to compile a debug MapGuide.
>
>
> Traian
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of UV
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:37 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [fdo-internals] Naming Conventions for debug build???
>
> Hi,
>
> in the mapguide project and elsewhere the debug versions of the
> libraries have a d suffix in their names.
> In the FDO build this is not the case.
> Basically having different library versions with the same name on the
> system seems not like a good way to go.
> I noticed this as a factor in introducing additional configuration
> problems into my developing system.
>
> Is there a good reason to do it like this or is this just an unfinished
> piece of configuration management and things have not been aligned
> properly as yet ???
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fdo-internals mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
> _______________________________________________
> fdo-internals mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
>
>  

_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
Traian Stanev

RE: Naming Conventions for debug build???

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink

Yes, for example you can also register a debug version of an FDO provider to an existing install of Map3D in case you need to debug your provider with Map3D.

Traian



> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:fdo-internals-
> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of UV
> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 10:51 AM
> To: FDO Internals Mail List
> Subject: Re: [fdo-internals] Naming Conventions for debug build???
>
> Ah, you mean kind of hot swapping... Interesting idea.
> Fair enough. It just gets a little bit confusing when you are actually
> have the debug and release versions of each....
> I did the hot swapping by moving Bin directories around.... and i got
> really confused which FDO I was ending up with....
> I like unix for the lib version  numbers in the filenames... thats so
> much cleaner....
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
>
> Traian Stanev wrote:
> > This way you can use a debug build of MapGuide against an installed
> or otherwise available release build of the FDO SDK. If the debug
> MapGuide linked to Fdod.dll instead of Fdo.dll, you would be forced to
> compile your own debug FDO in order to compile a debug MapGuide.
> >
> >
> > Traian
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [hidden email] [mailto:fdo-internals-
> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of UV
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:37 PM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Subject: [fdo-internals] Naming Conventions for debug build???
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > in the mapguide project and elsewhere the debug versions of the
> > libraries have a d suffix in their names.
> > In the FDO build this is not the case.
> > Basically having different library versions with the same name on the
> > system seems not like a good way to go.
> > I noticed this as a factor in introducing additional configuration
> > problems into my developing system.
> >
> > Is there a good reason to do it like this or is this just an
> unfinished
> > piece of configuration management and things have not been aligned
> > properly as yet ???
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > fdo-internals mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
> > _______________________________________________
> > fdo-internals mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> fdo-internals mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals