EF: Is the API concept using the existing API element
RK: Yes, there is nothing new. Just describe the compatibility between the layers. Can also use the components without the csolution system.
EF: Is there something equivalent to the IDX for the layers?
RK: Can have a local repository for layers. Csolution tool has the command ‘list layers’ which lists the compatible layers.
JK: Haven’t solved which packs someone needs to download for certain layers.
RK: Need to explain how layers are composed - with template projects and an example so people get it. Will needs to explain the process to allow people to create layers for custom hardware (hardware extensions)
EF: ST is thinking of board projects. Why did you select layers rather than a project? Specifically for the hardware part.
RK: The hardware is exposed as a layer to allow retargetting.
#82 ST proposal
RK : it’s the IDE support that matters and need to align with the IDE team working on the VSCode concept.
EF: Why do you think it could compete?
RK: It conflicts with the way the IDE shows the file tree.
VG: Seems a conflict between a pure filesystem view or a dedicated view.
RK: Upward compatible and can be added in Toolbox 2.1. First we wanted to see the IDE implementation.
VG: It’s how uvision is working vs how Eclipse is working
DJ: Internally we are allowing both approaches
ED: Can spot problems e.g. (i) if you are pointing to a huge network drive, (ii) challenging to manage per file options.
VG: Have very few users who are adding per file options.
RK: This is a bug. Need to mark it and track it based on the schedule I get back. We can’t solve it on the call.
SH: Think the best thing we can do is ignore it rather than error out. It’s different if you have a missing file. Clear error if the file is missing. Is the format open to support any project structure?