Hi Quentin On 18/10/2011, at 19:06 PM, Quentin Mathé wrote: > Yes, exactly. We don't have a CORootObject class or similar. > Once a core object has become persistent, you cannot change its root object > anymore though, because the root object identity (the UUID) is the core > object identity and the object identities must remain stable. Also other core > objects that refer to it might have their expectations broken, since that > could change the core object type.
Yes, in this case I think that its important, but if we manage to separate the root object from its commit log (by explicitly introducing the concept into the API) we might be able to break the link. > From what I have understood, the main interest is to support undoing > arbitrary branch operations such as deletion, switch or merge cleanly and in > a transparent way for the user. > > Is it possible to expand the commit track model to support undo/redo on > arbitrary branch operations? It seems to me that if the commit track model > was expanded it would be pretty much equivalent to Eric's NestedVersioning. It easily supports undo/redo on changing the revision that a branch points to. However, it doesn't really account for undo/redo on a branch creation/deletion, and as far as I can see, its not easily added. However, I think it's less important; I would implement branch deletion as a toggle switch, and allow the user to purge the metadata of a commit track if they really wanted. Nested versioning (I believe) could be quite complicated to implement, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. > Your EtoileFoundation doc looks really great. Thanks a lot for taking the > time to work on that :-) Thanks. Its a little difficult to structure as it really needs better examples, and many of the concepts need to reference each other to be coherent. Cheers Chris -------- Christopher Armstrong carmstr...@fastmail.com.au _______________________________________________ Etoile-dev mailing list Etoile-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-dev
