Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> Tim Ellison wrote:
>>> For example, if class X of the main version is not part of j2me,
>>> "process(j2me)" would move this file to a subdirectory ".streams/".
>> Why would you move the files rather than exclude them?
>>
>> I was assuming that the processor would generate a whole new source tree
>> for each process() target, so that you could work on the original
>> checked-out file in it's 'canonicalized form' for Big Java work, or
>> process("jme") into a new location and work in the non-canonical form
>> your Little Java spectacles on. [...]
>
> Neat idea!
>
> I would put the following restriction, though: one should NOT modify
> more than one target at a time.
Fair enough -- at least for now.
> So, you would probably need some way to prevent parallel modifications
> in "spectacle views".
Perhaps we should agree to use your 'devtarget' term for this :-)
> One way to achieve this:
>
> process(X,target, destination) => Xtarget in a distinct location
> and X files are changed to read-only and some tracking file F tells us
> about Xtarget's location.
Sure, should be simple enough if there is a well-known location for this
lock file. As you say, then developers would work on a single devtarget
at a time in their local workspace, but potentially go back to the
canonical form and switch to another devtarget to check that before
checking in the canonical form.
> So, you would also need:
>
> release(F) => asks all kind of questions (want to lose changes? delete
> files? etc.)
>
> Of course:
>
> revert(F?|destination?) => makes X read-write.
>
>
> [Hoping this was clear enough... It's not a very good explanation...]
Yep, I got it; and it seems quite simple with these restrictions.
>> Agreed. It would be interesting to determine the most effective
>> location for those markers (measured by reverse mapping accuracy vs.
>> number of markers).
>
> I am a fan of accuracy... Yet, maybe it would be simple enough if a
> release was always based on a specific svn URL, then the mark could be
> totally exact using svn keywords... :-)
You lost me here. I'm trying to define tie-points between the
'releasetarget' source and the canonical form. AIUI this will require
structured comments in the 'releasetarget', right?
Regards,
Tim
--
Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
IBM Java technology centre, UK.
