[fdo-internals] Naming Conventions for debug build???

[Traian Stanev]

Yes, for example you can also register a debug version of an FDO provider to an existing install of Map3D in case you need to debug your provider with Map3D.

Traian



> -----Original Message-----
> From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-
> bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of UV
> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 10:51 AM
> To: FDO Internals Mail List
> Subject: Re: [fdo-internals] Naming Conventions for debug build???
> 
> Ah, you mean kind of hot swapping... Interesting idea.
> Fair enough. It just gets a little bit confusing when you are actually
> have the debug and release versions of each....
> I did the hot swapping by moving Bin directories around.... and i got
> really confused which FDO I was ending up with....
> I like unix for the lib version  numbers in the filenames... thats so
> much cleaner....
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> 
> Traian Stanev wrote:
> > This way you can use a debug build of MapGuide against an installed
> or otherwise available release build of the FDO SDK. If the debug
> MapGuide linked to Fdod.dll instead of Fdo.dll, you would be forced to
> compile your own debug FDO in order to compile a debug MapGuide.
> >
> >
> > Traian
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-
> bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of UV
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:37 PM
> > To: fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> > Subject: [fdo-internals] Naming Conventions for debug build???
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > in the mapguide project and elsewhere the debug versions of the
> > libraries have a d suffix in their names.
> > In the FDO build this is not the case.
> > Basically having different library versions with the same name on the
> > system seems not like a good way to go.
> > I noticed this as a factor in introducing additional configuration
> > problems into my developing system.
> >
> > Is there a good reason to do it like this or is this just an
> unfinished
> > piece of configuration management and things have not been aligned
> > properly as yet ???
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > fdo-internals mailing list
> > fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
> > _______________________________________________
> > fdo-internals mailing list
> > fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> fdo-internals mailing list
> fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals