lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Vesse <rve...@dotnetrdf.org>
Subject Re: Multi-targeting and .Net (WAS Outstanding issues for 3.0.3)
Date Tue, 10 Jul 2012 05:21:13 GMT
Hey Chris

For multi-targeted stuff with .Net I've built some stuff that uses a small
executable and NAnt to generate project files which can then be compiled
with MSBuild.

This technique is used extensively for dotNetRDF where we target up to 6
different framework profiles for some of our libraries.  Essentially it
takes a source project, a project template to populate and a resulting
project name you want to generate.  It also needs a relative path to
indicate where the source project lives in relation to the target project.

When it runs it goes through the source project file and for every
Compile/EmbeddedResource item which is directly in that project (I.e. not
included via a Link) it adds a Link to that item to the target project
file.

The target project file is literally a stub project file (generated in
Visual Studio with the target framework set appropriately and it's own
AssemblyInfo.cs), see
http://dotnetrdf.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/dotnetrdf/Trunk/Libraries/core.
clientprofile/dotNetRDF.ClientProfile.csproj.template?revision=2252&view=ma
rkup for an example template.

See 
http://dotnetrdf.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/dotnetrdf/Trunk/Build/ExportCor
eContentsToTemplate/ for the actual tool

For the NAnt scripts with example usages see
http://dotnetrdf.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/dotnetrdf/Trunk/Build/nant/dotn
etrdf.build?revision=2252&view=markup - Look at the projectgen goals for
invocation examples and the compile targets for invoking MSBuild on the
end results.

It may be somewhat clunky but it does work, I'm sure it can be adapted to
your needs if you're interested - it's all open source

Rob

On 7/9/12 5:51 PM, "Christopher Currens" <currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:

>I've got it working, compiling and all test passing...The only caveat is
>that I'm not sure the best way to multi-target.  It doesn't really work on
>a project level, so you'd have to create two separate projects, one for
>.NET 4 and the other for 3.5.  To aid me, I wrote a small tool that
>creates
>copies of all of the 4.0 projects and solutions to work against the 3.5
>framework.  Anyone have experience with multi-targeting like this?
>
>
>Thanks,
>Christopher
>
>On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Prescott Nasser
><geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> Have at it.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>> > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:20:06 -0700
>> > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
>> > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
>> > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> >
>> > If it's alright with you, I'll work on it a little bit in that branch,
>> and
>> > see what kind of progress I can make, since I have some time right
>>now.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Prescott Nasser
>><geobmx540@hotmail.com
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > I made some progress on 480 - checked into the 3.5 branch, there is
>> more
>> > > work to be done we could potentially move it to 3.0.3, but I put it
>> into
>> > > 3.5 because I felt that we were closer to having this released, and
>> adding
>> > > those changes would add a fair amount of change so close to the
>> release. I
>> > > can add it back to the schedule, though I'm mostly just doing
>> > > administrative work for the next two weeks though - I have a few
>> things I
>> > > have to take care of
>> > >
>> > > ----------------------------------------
>> > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:21:42 -0700
>> > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
>> > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
>> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> > > >
>> > > > The tests should all be fine now. We had a contributer, Luc
>> Vanlerberghe,
>> > > > who did a LOT of work for us, getting these last few difficult
>>bugs
>> out
>> > > of
>> > > > the way. He's responsible for half or more of the failing tests
>>from
>> > > > LUCENENET-484 getting fixed, as well as LUCENE-493, with the
>>culture
>> > > > sensitivity. Also, I think we should no longer get any culture
>> issues,
>> > > > since the tests that are marked as culture sensitive are now all
>>run
>> in
>> > > all
>> > > > installed cultures on the machine.
>> > > >
>> > > > I think CLS compliance is still important and should be handled.
>>What
>> > > > about LUCENENET-480? I know that Prescott had done some work on
>>this
>> and
>> > > I
>> > > > also know this was requested by several in the community. I would
>> love to
>> > > > see that make it into 3.0.3, and would be able to pick up where
>> anyone
>> > > had
>> > > > left off or take part of it, if they don't have time to work on
>>it.
>> In
>> > > > regards to LUCENENET-446, I agree that it is pretty much
>>complete. I
>> > > think
>> > > > I've looked several times at it to confirm most/all methods have
>>been
>> > > > converted, so this week I'll do a final check and close it out.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks,
>> > > > Christopher
>> > > >
>> > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Simon Svensson <sisve@devhost.se>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > The tests that failed when using culture=sv-se seems fixed.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 2012-07-08 20:44, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> What's the status on the failing tests we had?
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Prescott Nasser <
>> > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
>> > > > >> >wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Three issues left that I see:
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> Fixing the build output, I did some work, but I'm good
on
>>this,
>> we
>> > > can
>> > > > >>> move the rest of work to 3.6
>> > > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-456<
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-456>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> CLS Compliance
>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
>> > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-446>.
>> > > > >>> Are
>> > > > >>> we ok with this as for now? There are still a good number
of
>> issues
>> > > > >>> where,
>> > > > >>> some we can't really fix (sbyte and volatile are out
of scope
>> imo).
>> > > In a
>> > > > >>> similiar vein, our own code uses some obsolete methods
and we
>> have a
>> > > lot
>> > > > >>> of
>> > > > >>> variable declared but never used warnings (mentally,
I treat
>>most
>> > > warning
>> > > > >>> as an error)
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> GetX/SetX -
>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-470<
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-470>.
>> > > > >>> I think
>> > > > >>> much of this has been removed, there are probably some
pieces
>> that
>> > > left
>> > > > >>> (and we have a difference of opinion in the group as
well).
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> I really think the only outstanding issue is the CLS
>>compliance
>> one,
>> > > the
>> > > > >>> rest can be moved to 3.6. With CLS compliance we have
to ask
>>if
>> we've
>> > > > >>> done
>> > > > >>> enough for that so far, or if more is needed. I personally
>>would
>> > > like to
>> > > > >>> see us make any API changes now, with the 3.0.3 release,
but
>>if
>> we
>> > > are
>> > > > >>> comfortable with it, lets roll.
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> What are your thoughts?
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> ~P
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> ------------------------------**----------
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> From: thoward37@gmail.com
>> > > > >>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:34:37 -0700
>> > > > >>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
>> > > > >>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org<
>> > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> Assuming we're talking about the packaging/filesystem
>>structure
>> in
>> > > the
>> > > > >>>> releases, the structure is a little of both (ours
vs
>> Apache's)...
>> > > > >>>> Basically, I went through most of the Apache projects
to see
>>how
>> > > they
>> > > > >>>> packaged releases and developed a structure that
was very
>> similar
>> > > but
>> > > > >>>> encompassed everything we needed. So, it's informed
by the
>> > > organically
>> > > > >>>> emergent structures that ASF uses.
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> -T
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Prescott Nasser
<
>> > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
>> > > > >>>> >
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>> wrote:
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> I have no idea why I thought we were using Nant.
>> > > > >>>>> I think it's just "our release structure". I
figured a
>>little
>> out
>> > > this
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>> weekend, splitting the XML and .dll files into separate
>> > > directories. The
>> > > > >>> documentation you have on the wiki was actually pretty
>>helpful.
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> Whatever more you can add would be great
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>> ~P
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:04:21 -0400
>> > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
>> > > > >>>>>> From: mherndon@wickedsoftware.net
>> > > > >>>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org<
>> > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Prescott
Nasser <
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>> geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 470, a non-serious one, is listed
only because
>>it's
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> mostly done
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> and
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>> just need a few loose ends tied up.
I'll hopefully have
>> time to
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> take care
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> of that this weekend.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> How many GetX/SetX are left? I did a
quick search for
>> 'public *
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> Get*()'
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> Most of them looked to be actual methods - perhaps
a few to
>> replace
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 446 (CLS Compliance), is important,
but there's no
>> way we
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> can get
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> this done quickly. The current state of this issue
is that
>>all
>> of
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> the
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> names of public members are now compliant. There
are a few
>> things
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> that
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> aren't, the use of sbyte (particularly those related
to the
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> FieldCache)
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> and
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>> some conflicts with *protected or
internal* fields (some
>> with
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> public
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> members). Opinions on this one will be appreciated
the most.
>>My
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> opinion
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> is that we should draw a line on the amount of CLS
>>compliance to
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> have in
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> this release, and push the rest into 3.5.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> I count roughly 53 CLS compliant issues.
the sbyte stuff
>> will run
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> into
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> trouble when you do bit shifting (I ran into this
issue when
>> trying
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> to do
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> this for 2.9.4. I'd like to see if we can't get rid
of the
>> easier
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> stuff
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> (internal/protected stuff). I would not try getting
rid of
>> sbyte or
>> > > > >>>>>>> volatile for thile release. It's going
to take some
>>serious
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> consideration
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> to get rid of those
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 337 - Are we going to
add this code (not
>> present
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> in java)
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> to
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>> the core library?
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> I'd skip it and re-evaluate the community
desire for this
>>in
>> 3.5.
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 456 - This is related
to builds being
>>output
>> in
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> Apache's
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> release format. Do we want to do this for this release?
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> I looked into this last weekend - I'm
terrible with Nant,
>>so
>> I
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> didn't get
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> anywhere. It would be nice to have, but I don't think
I'll
>> figure
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> it out.
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> If Michael has some time to maybe make the adjustment,
he
>>knows
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> these
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> scripts best. If not I'm going to look into it, but
I don't
>>call
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> this a
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> show stopper - either we have it or we don't when
the rest is
>> done.
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> With some Flo Rida and expresso shots,
anything is
>>possible.
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> Did we switch to Nant?
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> I saw the jira ticket for this. Is there
an official apache
>> > > release
>> > > > >>>>>> structure or this just our* apache release
structure that
>>we
>> are
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>> using?
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> Can I take the latest release and use that to model
the
>> structure
>> > > you
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>> guys
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> want?
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> @Prescott declarative xml build scripts are
a pita in
>>general.
>> > > only
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>> reason
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> we're using this over powershell or a scripting language
is
>>that
>> > > mono
>> > > > >>>>>> supports it and most .NET devs have it already
installed.
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> I'll spend some more time documenting it
so that others can
>> work
>> > > on
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>> it and
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> even refactor it.
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> ~P
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>>
>>





Mime
View raw message