With the introduction of multiple content sections, plus the fact you've already mentioned that messages and other substitution can lead to line number modification (and certainly column modification), I actually like the List<Hunk> idea.
This will be especially so once we support some mechanism for inclusion of one content section in another. --John On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 3:56 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 18, 2008 3:11 PM, Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From what I can tell right now, we're probably going to only wind up > with 1 > > "Hunk" anyway, since the inlining of the other files will wind up > happening > > in the cajoling process rather than in shindig itself. > > Okay, so we assume then that the only change you are making to the > content is message substitution, and that this does not substantially > affect file positions (i.e., it does not affect *line* number)? If so, > then you're right, we only need 1 hunk. > > If so, then the information we need is the start position for the > [one] hunk, right? And we don't need the inline annotations, right? So > we end up with -- > > GadgetContentRewriter.rewriteContent( > ..., > FilePosition start, > Readable content, > ...); > > Does this look okay then? Does everyone -- Shindig and Caja -- like > this better? What are the limitations? > > Ihab > > -- > Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA >
