On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Jacob Nordfalk <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 for the proposal. > > 2012/3/24 Stephen Tigner <[email protected]> >> >> I think I'm gonna need to read that again a few times to see if that'd >> affect the Java runtime at all, > > > Unhammer is actually writing this as a result of a discussion I started on > IRC on the occasion that I didnt like lttoolbox-java to have to cut away > these paths. > > (Unhammer, I want you as my ghost writer :-) Ah, I see. makes more sense now, thanks.
>> >> but I thought I'd at least pitch in >> with an explanation of how the Java runtime currently handles .mode >> files. > > > Thanks for a great explanation. > Anyone who wants to browse the code he explains can look > at http://apertium.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/apertium/trunk/lttoolbox-java/src/org/apertium/pipeline/ > > >> >> A quick fix that uses path could be to check for existence of the >> program at the specified path, and if not, try running it w/ just the >> command name w/o a full path. > > > Its not that clear from the code diff, but the idea is first to look for the > commands in the installation dir, then on the general PATH: > > PATH="${APERTIUM_PATH}:${PATH}" > > > I think the java port should do the same, but first check if the task can be > done by lttoolbox-java itself internally. So, like > > PATH="can we do it without invoking external > stuff?:${APERTIUM_PATH}:${PATH}" > > :-) Ah, okay, so I'm assuming APERTIUM_PATH is an environment variable? If so, that should be fairly easy to implement. Just need to tweak a bit how the UNKNOWN programs are called. I'll try and take a look at it tonight if I have time. n.n -- Stephen ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF email is sponsosred by: Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
