cmaglie:
(sorry for the delay, there days are very busy for me)@Jantje, you already answered yourself: including the following two paths
./libraries/Servo2/src
./libraries/Servo2/arch/${arch}
should solve your problem, is that a real burden?
It is not a real burden but it is work that moves from the compiler to the tool. Also from a user perspective removing a library is removing 2 folders. I realize this is not a problem for the Arduino ide but it is one for other tool builders.
Please take into account what I have stated before
Most of the 1.5.X changes are great improvements but I see this library change as over-engineering because of the focus on multiplatform. Many libraries are not multiplatform. I think there are enough c++ ways to solve the multiplatform problems for the libraries that need it; without dependencies on the IDE/make.
cmaglie:
Using a file like:#ifdef ARDUINO_ARCH_AVR
#include ../arch/avr/Servo.cpp
#elif ARDUINO_ARCH_SAM
#include ../arch/avr/Servo.cpp
#else
#error The hardware is not supported
#endif
doesn't scale very well, every platform you're going to support need a separate #ifdef section to be added, and you should replicate this structure for every .c / .cpp file contained in your library, this means a quadratic load of maintenance work (N_of_files * N_of_platforms) just to make it compile.
I think the file scales just as good as a folder with subfolders. To be honest I don't see the problem.
If more files are needed they should be included in the main file. This because servo.cpp is part of the description and not of the implementation.
I guess that I did not explain my main objection to the current proposal clearly.
My main objection is that the source is not under the source folder. The source is actually in a subfolder of the arch folder and the declaration is in the source folder. That is at least for the new architecture dependent libraries.
The architecture independent libraries (and I feel this is the biggest bulk) will have there source under the src folder.
My second objection is that I feel this is overengineering
The setup you are proposing may be good (except for my first objection) if you have a library witch is architecture dependant and non-related people are delivering the source for each architecture.
However as you posted in your last answer in that case someone will have to take ownership to arrange for the code.
Paul who has been working on many cross architecture libraries has states he prefers to work with ifdef in the code.
I call this over engineering as you are basically trying to solve a problem (multiple independent people delivering a implementation for the same declaration for different architectures) that does not exist (as they will need to deliver to a single owner) and is only a very small fraction of the existing libraries.
Think about this situation: Paul is working on a architecture dependent library and he is doing the teensy part.
I do the avr and sam part. and you are the owner.
Paul delivers 1 file Platformdependentlib.cpp for teensy
I deliver 1 file Platformdependentlib.cpp for avr and sam.
How will you organize this? Will you copy my file to the sam and avr folder? Will you ask me to deliver 2 files?
I agree you are not directly enforcing this setup to library developers but you are enforcing this to the tool makers. This because there will be a competitor screaming the tool is not 100% compatible even though there is not 1 single library around that uses the proposed setup.
Best regards
Jantje