Are you starting the program by running "main.rkt" in DrRacket or with something like
racket main.rkt [in the "bibdcc" directory] ? If so, do you get a different result using racket -l bibdcc ? At Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:16:33 -0400, Eric Tanter wrote: > Sorry I still don't get it. > > Here's what I've tried: > - moved my application files to the user collects directory of my system. > - made the proper dir/subdir structure > - use only (require myapp/mod1) kind of requires > > (It works ok) > > Now if I serialize some structures in a file, they still get absolute path > names. > Eg.: > ((2) 5 ((#"/Users/etanter/Library/Racket/5.1/collects/bibdcc/main.rkt" . > deserialize-info:order-v0) > > I must be missing something. Any idea? > > Thanks, > > -- Éric > > > On Mar 28, 2011, at 10:33 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote: > > > 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
