You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Dec 12, 2020. It is now read-only.
All classes with the Step1 attribute should be processed first, then Step2, then Step3. The output of each step would be used a later step (memoized in-memory, in temporary files, or in files to be included in compilation).
What strategy would you recommend to ensure that code is generated in a specific order? (I am not asking for a code change, just for ideas.)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
My initial thought is to write my own custom Engine implementation which would require me to create a custom tool implementation.
I noticed that extracting the engine into its own project was a pretty recent change. Is it possible that you were considering enabling injection of alternate engine implementations?
Sooo, in general, as you've discovered, it's not a supported scenario.
It is however an interesting idea to allow custom engine implementations.
I'll just warn you that creating such dependencies will probably result in a couple compilations.
As you might now, essentially the Engine compiles the project, and runs generators on the Compilation. If you want to re-create the Compilation after every generator runs, it's going to be quite expensive (in terms of time taken).
Given the following attributes...
All classes with the
Step1
attribute should be processed first, thenStep2
, thenStep3
. The output of each step would be used a later step (memoized in-memory, in temporary files, or in files to be included in compilation).What strategy would you recommend to ensure that code is generated in a specific order? (I am not asking for a code change, just for ideas.)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: