Difference between revisions of "Talk:User/AirborneCodeReorg"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(moved comments to disscussion) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
NOTE: IMHO now compiling the AC from commandline becomes more cumbersome. The makefile can already be in an Include in the XML. Do not forget it was designed this way for a reason ;). A dynamic makefile is OK by me but make sure the old methods do not break. Code refactoring is better first done by cleaning up odl thing, not redesigning first. [OpenUAS] | NOTE: IMHO now compiling the AC from commandline becomes more cumbersome. The makefile can already be in an Include in the XML. Do not forget it was designed this way for a reason ;). A dynamic makefile is OK by me but make sure the old methods do not break. Code refactoring is better first done by cleaning up odl thing, not redesigning first. [OpenUAS] | ||
: I don't quite understand what you mean. Compiling stays exactly the same, just your airframe file changes. In order to refactor the code we need something like this (subsystem makefiles) otherwise when we refactor all airframes will break. [flixr] | |||
Revision as of 11:27, 23 August 2010
IMHO not really compelling reasons for such a drastical change. Better to take a look at other projects first and how they reorganized e.g. http://pixhawk.ethz.ch [OpenUAS]
NOTE: IMHO now compiling the AC from commandline becomes more cumbersome. The makefile can already be in an Include in the XML. Do not forget it was designed this way for a reason ;). A dynamic makefile is OK by me but make sure the old methods do not break. Code refactoring is better first done by cleaning up odl thing, not redesigning first. [OpenUAS]
- I don't quite understand what you mean. Compiling stays exactly the same, just your airframe file changes. In order to refactor the code we need something like this (subsystem makefiles) otherwise when we refactor all airframes will break. [flixr]