Revision as of 05:23, 15 January 2008 by Ericb (Talk | contribs) (Xace)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The purpose of this page is to compare existing configuration solutions. This would help to see if we can merge existing solutions into just one, thus avoiding duplication of effort. At the moment we are only going to compare `ace', `ecf' and `xace'.

In the table below, we have 4 possible answers:

  • Yes: Feature is present
  • No: Feature was deliberately not supported
  • N/A: Unlike No it is not present but not deliberately
  • DNK: Do Not Know, that is to say if you know the answer, feel free to update the DNK entry.

Feel free to update this page if you feel there is a missing feature, that we have an accurate comparisons.

Feature ace ecf xace
Cluster management
Notion of cluster Yes Yes Yes
Recursive cluster Yes Yes Yes
Notion of override cluster Yes Yes Yes
Allow multiple override cluster Yes Yes Yes
Notion of group (Cluster, Library, Assembly, Override) No Yes Yes
Support for group dependencies No Yes N/A
Notion of library No Yes Yes
Class names
Enable some sort of class renaming Yes Yes N/A
Class prefixing (renaming of all classes of a group) No Yes Yes
Allow for same class name in a recursive cluster in different subdirectories Yes No No
Project management
Optional specification (i.e. option being platform, build, or user defined) No Yes Yes
Multiple targets (i.e. more than one system in a configuration file) No Yes No
Access style
Reading/editing configuration file as a library No Yes Yes
Graphical front end for reading/editing configuration file Yes Yes N/A
Interfacing to external software
Support .NET assembly Yes Yes Yes
Specification of includes for C/C++ externals Yes Yes Yes
Specification of object files for C/C++ externals Yes Yes Yes
Specification of C/C++ compiler options No No Yes