On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Edward K. Ream <[email protected]> wrote: > ===== The synchronization problem > > There is a potentially fatal problem with this scheme. Any time *any* > data is composed from multiple sources, the question arises, > > what happens if the two sources get out of synch? > > For example, what happens if I commit an external file, but not the > file containing the associated @test nodes? Later, when somebody else > reads the external file into Leo, at least two problems can occur: > > 1. The node referenced in the #@include sentinel will not be found at > all. > > 2. The node will be found, but will be out of date. > > Leo can detect the first problem because #@include sentinels give a > gnx. > > Leo could detect the second problem it the #@include sentinel > contained a time stamp. > > It's not clear, however, that merely detecting the problem is enough. > This might be an example of a beautiful theory being killed by an ugly > fact. However, I'm not ready to give up on tag files just yet ;-)
Might this be solved with the general idea I've been describing, of distinguishing @file from something like @template, where you would be allowed to clone in pieces from other sources? Let @file only refer to its own single external file. The synchronization problem becomes self-evidently resolved: @file, being the actual source, takes precedence over any compositions under @template nodes -- the user recognizes that @template nodes are virtual and updated by the origins of their contents. Seth -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
