I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "collection-based library".
The structs are part of an app I'm building from scratch. For now I have a couple of .rkt files, some of which define the structs in question, and I import them in the main module with (require "foo.rkt"), etc. Suggestions? Thanks, -- Éric On Mar 28, 2011, at 5:22 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote: > At Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:36:22 -0400, Eric Tanter wrote: >> I'm playing with serializable structs and noticed that the absolute path of >> the source rkt definition is inserted in the representation (I'm writing >> structs out to a file). >> The problem is that if I then move my application to a server for >> deployment, >> all serialized structs cannot be deserialized anymore. If I edit/replace, it >> works, but I assume this is not the right way to proceed. >> >> What is the best way to obtain "portable" serialized structs? > > If the struct is defined in a collection-based library, then the > serialized form will use the collection path instead of a filesystem > path. I think that's the only way currently to make the information > path-independent. > > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
