On 2010-04-18, at 00:20 , Faré wrote:
Dear all,
I think time has come to declare ASDF 2.0 in beta-test, and focus on releasing it before we get more features into it.
If there are any bug fixes or improvements you think should definitely be in 2.0, please open a bug in launchpad and tag them as such (milestone: version 2), or otherwise make it prominent in your message on this mailing-list.
before one can declare asdf 2.0 to be feature complete, one should have a specification of its intended function and then gauge the implementation in those terms. while the users' manual does explain aspects of the user and/or programmer interface, in addition to the descriptions of the interface, there should be something which describes the requirements which are being beta-tested - both to assess completeness and to inform future maintenance. the additions to the code base over the past few months were devoted to two areas:
- configuration - output translations
i neglect, for the moment, the configuration component of the asdf evolution and concentrate on questions related to output translations. even though the configuration mechanism contributes settings which affected the latter, they are in sufficiently independent, that an isolated analysis is reasonable.
in lieu of a specification, several asdf-devel messages on the topic of output translations[1--5] discuss requirements. the asdf-binary- location users' guide includes a "what it does" passage[6]. the asdf- binary-locations-devel archives[7] include no additional discussions. to follow those discussions, an output translation mechanism should make it possible to
- place (output) files under a single root - place (output) files in a tree specific to (runtime x version x project x file-type) - include process information (eg, pid or user id) in the location - specify elements of the mapping programmatically - specify elements of the mapping by configuration - combine independent specifications - express location maps both globally and in connection with specific sub-systems (cl-controller, cl-launch, etc) - support simultaneous, independent mapping for binary output and ancillary data files - disable translations for a given path - disable translations completely
in response to these requirements, "asdf binary locations" was developed, first as an extension to, then integrated with asdf, and further developed into a general output translation facility. while the evolution brings definite benefits, in the process, between version 1.362, when a-b-l was incorporated into asdf core, and the current +/- 1.7, the source size has increased from 56K to 132K, the function count has grown from less than one hundred to more than two hundred, and the call count has almost tripled.
the call graphs[8] depict the situation. each node in the graph corresponds to a function in the asdf implementation, each edge to a call. the green nodes were present in 1.362, the yellow nodes in 1.502, and red nodes in 1.7. filled nodes have remained, while empty nodes indicate functions which are no longer present. the increase in code mass and complexity is evident. since, as expressed, the requirements could be met by logical pathname translations, the situation causes concern. there is nothing in the functional requirements, as such, which dictates an implementation of this complexity. there are, however, non-functional concerns which appear to have informed the decision: it has been held, that - logical pathnames are not portable; - the facility must operate in terms of physical pathnames as real- world lisp applications require file names which do not conform to logical pathname syntax constraints.
in the course of testing the output location mapping itself, it was demonstrated[9] that the non-portability claims were unfounded. an experiment based on 1.502 demonstrated[10] that a mechanism which separates location translation from truename processing can provide the required functionality with much less code in terms of logical pathnames despite non-conformant physical pathnames. the logical pathname based location maps were then re-implemented in 1.702 and further experiments demonstrated that - with changes to the scripts to account for functions which would be removed, all regression tests pass, and that with appropriate initialization, a multi-runtime build is supported for the normal abcl/acl/ccl/clisp/cmucl/ecl/lw/sbcl complement. the following host definition, for example, produces a centralized per-runtime translation tree for output files.
(let ((root (make-pathname :directory (butlast (pathname-directory *build-init-pathname*) 2) :name nil :type nil :defaults *build-init- pathname*)) (host "SOURCES")) (setf (logical-pathname-translations host) '(("**;*.*" "**;*.*"))) (let ((lbin (pathname-type (compile-file-pathname (make- pathname :host host :name "TEST" :type "LISP")))) (bin (pathname-type (compile-file-pathname "test.lisp")))) (setf (logical-pathname-translations host) `((,(make-pathname :host host :directory '(:absolute :wild- inferiors) :name :wild :type lbin :version :wild) ,(make-pathname :directory `(,@(pathname-directory root) "bin" ,(asdf::implementation-identifier) :wild-inferiors) :name :wild :type bin :version :wild)) (,(make-pathname :host host :directory '(:absolute :wild- inferiors) :name :wild :type :wild :version :wild) ,(make-pathname :directory `(,@(pathname-directory root) :wild-inferiors) :name :wild :type :wild :version :wild)))))
(setq asdf::*translations-root* (make-pathname :host host :directory '(:absolute) :name nil :type nil)))
given which, the question occurs, whether the output locations implementation deserves further thought before it advances to beta status?
--- [1] : http://common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/2010-March/000943.html [2] : http://tinyurl.com/yyv2o4w [3] : http://common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/2010-February/ 000691.html [4] : http://common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/2010-February/ 000699.html [5] : http://common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/2010-February/ 000702.html [6] : http://common-lisp.net/project/asdf-binary-locations/user- guide.html [7] : http://common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-binary-locations-devel/ [8] : http://reports.setf.de/asdf-versions-twopi.svg, http://reports.setf.de/asdf-versions-twopi.pdf, http://reports.setf.de/asdf-versions-dot.svg, http://reports.setf.de/asdf-versions-dot.pdf [9] : http://tinyurl.com/y7jmzee : the test cases are present in dual form, one for a physical pathname and once for a logical pathname [10] : http://common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/2010-April/ 001351.html