From: <el...@mi...> - 2004-11-08 03:03:57
|
> Great! That sounds good :). Hopefully I'll get my computer back on > it's legs soon...the transformer died, and I also got my new HDD, so > I've been copying everything over. > Don't worry, take your time. >> Perhaps the most obvious way is to create a separate CVS module, so >> we don't have a mess in the main davinci module. This aproach have >> one important inconvenient: Some unit code have to be shared between >> the main DaVinci program and the plugins, so we would need to have a >> duplicate in each module. I don't have to say that it will be a pain >> when the file updates in one module, and it's not updated in the other. > > > Well, I donno... The advantage to having the sdk code in a different > module is that we can develop is seperately keep stable sdk in the > main davinci module as well develop another version of the sdk. Of > course, this does have the problem that you highlighted...a bunch of > different versions of the files to keep current :(. Maybe we could > have a script that would check out the sdk source and make > symlinks...that wouldn't be very compatible with Windows though. So I > agree that having everything in the same module would probably be the > best... > If we put a cvs co sdk then we no longer have the stable copy of th SDK :). We should only share data structure definitions and function prototypes, i. e. the interface sections of the SDK units (think c header files), but still there's the problem of stability, maybe we can just develop the IDE and the SDK togheter and just release them togheter? >> Alternatively, we can put the SDK code into a sdk directory inside >> davinci module. This way we have everything in one place, and >> everything is sync'ed. We have to make sure we don't mess with other >> units. > > > Sounds good to me :). > Good, cause that's the way i'm making it :). |