At Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:28:02 -0400, Eric Tanter wrote: > 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.
I mean in a library that you require like (require mystuff/foo) or (require (planet ....)) instead of (require "foo.rkt") Or a relative-path `require' is ok from some other module in the same collection, as long as a collection path is used at some point. > 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 _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
