[CMake] providing library information, what's the cmake way

[Johannes Zarl]

On Wednesday 01 December 2010 17:57:45 Johannes Zarl wrote:
> Back to my proposed FPCHSA: My initial goal was to provide an interface
> which does as much work as possible for you, maybe at the price of
> restricted variable naming. So let's come up with a better interface:
> 
> I do want to restrict the possible prefix for modules, because I really
> do think it is a good practice (and a practice worth enforcing) to
> require a common package prefix and one prefix for each component):
> 
> FPCHSA( XXX DEFAULT_MSG LIBRARY INCLUDE_DIR DEFINITIONS
>   COMPONENT YYY DEFAULT_MSG LIBRARY INCLUDE_DIR DEFINITIONS
>   COMPONENT ZZZ DEFAULT_MSG INCLUDE_DIR OTHER_VAR )
> 
> This is far noisier than the initial approach, but still much easier to
> read and more compact to write that the FPHSA approach outlined above
> (3 lines vs. 7 lines). Even without the namespace-enforcement it would
> be readable:
> 
> FPCHSA( XXX DEFAULT_MSG XXX_LIBRARY XXX_INCLUDE_DIR XXX_DEFINITIONS
>   COMPONENT YYY DEFAULT_MSG XXX_YYY_LIBRARY XXX_YYY_INCLUDE_DIR
> XXX_YYY_DEFINITIONS COMPONENT ZZZ DEFAULT_MSG XXX_YYY_INCLUDE_DIR
> XXX_YYY_OTHER_VAR )
> 
> This signature should even be downwards-compatible with FPHSA.

Btw. I just read the documentation for the "new" FPHSA: I do think that the 
COMPONENT keyword would actually fit in quite well into the new interface.

I guess the FindPackageHandleStandardArgs-maintainer is reading this list:
What do you think about adding component support?

Cheers,
  Johannes