Re: Autotools GSoC ideas

[Stefano Lattarini]

On Wednesday 09 March 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 10:50:47PM CET:
> > On Tuesday 08 March 2011, Robert Collins wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> > > >  ``Interfacing with the Test Anything Protocol (TAP).  If possible, try
> > > >   to write an implementation that will allow future extensions to
> > > >   similar but more advanced advanced protocols (e.g., subunit, which
> > > >   is similar to TAP but slightly more structured, capable of handling
> > > >   binary attachments, and so on).''
> > > 
> > > You could - or you could just write to the most capable and let folk
> > > insert a filter (e.g. tap2subunit, included in the subunit package) if
> > > they are using a different protocol themselves.
> > >
> > This seems a good approach from a design point of view; unfortunately, the
> > existing filters in the `subunit' distribution all require python, which
> > hampers portability in a way unacceptable for automake.
> 
> I don't think we need to do this kind of evaluation or decision at
> this point yet.  It could be done as part of the project, or maybe a
> project proposal.
>
OK. If you say that a more fuzzy proposal shouldn't cause problems at
this point, I'll follow your lead.  I'm all in favor of taking the due
time to evaluate things carefully, if that's possible.

> Also, just because there may be only python filters
> ATM, doesn't mean that needs to remain this way.
>
Yes, but IIUC Robert's main point was that, reusing the existing tools,
we could code more generally without having to code more (quantitatively
speaking).  This advantage unfortunately disappers if we have to rewrite
those existing tools :-(

> I've added the proposals to the wiki now.
>
Could you please post a link to that wiki?  I'm ashamed to admit I've
not been able to find it ...

Thanks,
   Stefano