On 17 December 2013 08:50, Thijs Schreijer <th...@thijsschreijer.nl> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Would it be possible to use named trees? The current list of trees is
> defined by a path, or the `--local` option.
>
> Then again the `list` command doesn’t list the contents of `--local`
>
>
>
> So I figured if trees could be named; eg. ‘system’ and ‘local’ in a default
> installation, then the `--local` option could be dropped, as it could be
> replaced by `tree=local`. It would also make it easy to use things like
> `tree=system51`, `tree=zbs`, or `tree=mytestapp`
>
>
>
> rocks_trees = {
> {name = [[system]], path = [[C:\ProgramData\LuaRocks]]},
> {name = [[local]], path = [[C:\Users\Thijs\AppData\Roaming\LuaRocks]]},
> }
It's a good idea. We have named rocks_servers using string keys in the
table, but we can't do the same because trees are ordered. The 'name'
field in the subtable could be used as you suggested, but...
> Somehow this seems more logical to me. But maybe I’m missing something.
Well, it would be slightly incompatible because --tree=foo currently
means "use the foo directory as the tree". (Workarounds such as
"assume it's a name if there's no dir" or vice-versa are prone to bite
users or become bugs waiting to happen in their scripts.) So we have a
bit of a UI dilemma here.
-- Hisham
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT
organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance
affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your
Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Luarocks-developers mailing list
Luarocks-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/luarocks-developers
