change node-addon-api build to cmake

[DaAitch]

This is not a request to change everything in one day, but a possible improvement/POC of the build.
What are your feelings about a cmake setup?

improvements:

• get rid of node-gyp one day (like me, what I've read community is not very happy with it)
• no config-only rigid builds
• cmake features
  • build is code
  • cross-os compilation
  • actively maintained
  • standard build tool for C/C++ (support ninja/Makefile)

disadvantages:

• maybe cannot drop node-gyp support for the first time

Other improvements are:

• I could simplify how tests are compiled/executed: *.test.cc files are compiled, *.test.js files are executed, so simply add files
• logging/documentation: I love to read code as documentation, so that I can understand how sth. works. With node-gyp it's like "understand node-gyp configuration or die", and with cmake it's easy to understand what happens, maybe not for a beginner to write, but to also to read and understand

[gabrielschulhof]

@DaAitch we need to ensure that CMake is available on all the machines of https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-node-addon-api/. I'm totally in favour of switching to CMake though.

[DaAitch]

@gabrielschulhof: cool, so that should not be a big thing, right :-) ?

[gabrielschulhof]

Well, it's a modification to the CI infrastructure. We need to see if a switch to CMake is already in work on https://github.com/nodejs/build/.

[DaAitch]

what I could found on nodejs and builds is:

• [request] cmake build job build#1003 (request cmake)
• Suggestion: New Python & GYP strategic initiative or working group TSC#642 (new gyp WG for nodejs)
• Build node with GN node#21410 (node use gn)

@mhdawson has been involved to some issues. maybe he can help us here?

[mhdawson]

There has been some exploratory work to look at using cmake with node core, but its not gotten to the point where there is consensus or a view on when it might/might not happen.

I think it is interesting it exploring using cmake instead. Is it possible that we could support both at the same time?

[DaAitch]

@mhdawson I did some refactoring of the build, but in general if I hadn't remove the gyp files, we could support both the same time. No change of the sources, so: yes.

[mhdawson]

Can you share what it looks like with cmake support added? Would be good to look at the changes to better understand.

[DaAitch]

sure, it's already attached above: 98cc0c3

[mhdawson]

Opened nodejs/TSC#648 to rekindle the discussion for using cmake in node core.

[DaAitch]

@mhdawson would a PR makes sense, that touches nothing, but adds an experimental CMakeLists.txt?
Maybe we can run cmake build on CI as well?

The commit I did was a mix of many small things I found (maybe I will create a PR for them as well).

[mhdawson]

I'm not sure yet. It would be good to have a more complete picture on the suitability of cmake for building addons in general. A distinct PR might make it easier to see the changes that it introduces but I'm not sure we'd be ready to land it.

[DaAitch]

@mhdawson okay, so we can retrigger this after nodejs/TSC#648. I'll close this.

[refack]

FYI: there is https://github.com/cmake-js/cmake-js

[bkotzz]

Can we revive this at all? Would anyone be interested in a PR that simply adds a CMakeList for the library, and a CI job that makes sure it builds, but we keep using gyp for now?