Developer forums (C::B DEVELOPMENT STRICTLY!) > Development

wxExecute considered harmful

<< < (2/3) > >>

afb:
Here is the related crashing bug:
http://developer.berlios.de/bugs/?func=detailbug&bug_id=8950&group_id=5358

I'll just patch it to watch out for -1,
and look for your reimplementation.

dmoore:

--- Quote from: thomas on November 10, 2006, 12:00:30 am ---The interface is almost completely done, and it is definitely not the wxExecute one, this would mean an almost complete rewrite (and a painful one).
--- End quote ---

could you submit it as an alternative to wxExecute and let them decide if they want to adopt it? (I too would like a good alternative to wxExecute)

Game_Ender:
I guess I should of been more clear, with so many glaring deficiencies in wxExecute, why not propose a wxExecute v2.   So what if the interface is different, if it accomplishes the same goal: spawning child processes and communicating with them asynchronously over stdin/stdout and in a more efficient and less buggy way it would at least be a good proposal.  And if it does not get accepted upstream you could spin it off as a small side project.  Then end goal is remove the CB devs from having to worry much about with esoteric things like process creation and let the wxWidgets people maintain it.

Game_Ender:
P.S.-  All the talk you guys had about this, was this on the forum, in private messages, email, IRC?  I just get the feeling that I missing out on part of the development process.  I am just curious because the most of the insight we have on the dev cycle is from roadmap.  And "wxExecute replacement" is definitely not on there.  Also while I am at it Mac OS X support should be moved to the 1.0 release, because we are so close already.

takeshimiya:

--- Quote from: Game_Ender on November 10, 2006, 05:11:31 am ---I just get the feeling that I missing out on part of the development process. 

--- End quote ---
you're not alone in that feeling, I feel that we're somewhere in between the cathedral and the bazaar...;

I fully agree with message http://forums.codeblocks.org/index.php?topic=4435.msg35088#msg35088
if the implementation/interface is universal enough there are chances it will be accepted in upstream wx

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page