Carl Karsten wrote: > If they do want to use the pattern, I will be happy to make the changes.
I get the feeling that you will use the pattern in any case, so it won't be a huge thing to get them into Dabo in the future if we all of a sudden see the light, smack our collective foreheads, and exclaim "i-layer! i-layer! Bring back the i-layer! Get me Carl Karsten!". :) > Actually, one of the reasons I want this pattern is so I can make changes and > submit* them, and if they are rejected, I can keep using them for my apps. > (*submit as in show and discuss, not submit a patch. once the change is > approved,then there would be a 'move' step to integrate the change in the > dabo > base classes.) Some key parts of the VFE framework lived in my i-layer for > over > a year. The best way to see and discuss changes is through patches that we can merge into our working copies and see them in action. The best way to apply changes is via the patch as well. There are also features of Subversion that you could use as well. Say you modified code in some Dabo class somewhere and then did 'svn update'. If the update conflicted (in location of the updated change) with your change then Subversion raises a flag, and makes several copies of the conflicting file marking the changed state so you can deal with it. This also includes rendering the actual .py file useless, so you are in fact forced to deal with it. I know this isn't the same as what you are talking about with the i-layer, but it does appear to touch on at least part of it. Python/Dabo combined with Subversion is a pretty killer combo. -- pkm ~ http://paulmcnett.com _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/dabo-users
