+1 for the proposal.
2012/3/24 Stephen Tigner <stephen.tig...@gmail.com>
> I think I'm gonna need to read that again a few times to see if that'd
> affect the Java runtime at all,
Unhammer is actually writing this as a result of a discussion I started on
IRC on the occasion that I didnt like lttoolbox-java to have to cut away
these paths.
(Unhammer, I want you as my ghost writer :-)
> but I thought I'd at least pitch in
> with an explanation of how the Java runtime currently handles .mode
> files.
>
Thanks for a great explanation.
Anyone who wants to browse the code he explains can look at
http://apertium.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/apertium/trunk/lttoolbox-java/src/org/apertium/pipeline/
> A quick fix that uses path could be to check for existence of the
> program at the specified path, and if not, try running it w/ just the
> command name w/o a full path.
Its not that clear from the code diff, but the idea is first to look for
the commands in the installation dir, then on the general PATH:
PATH="${APERTIUM_PATH}:${PATH}"
I think the java port should do the same, but first check if the task can
be done by lttoolbox-java itself internally. So, like
PATH="can we do it without invoking external
stuff?:${APERTIUM_PATH}:${PATH}"
:-)
--
Jacob Nordfalk <https://plus.google.com/114820443085046080944>
http://javabog.dk
Android-udvikler og underviser på
IHK<http://cv.ihk.dk/diplomuddannelser/itd/vf/MAU>og
Lund&Bendsen <https://www.lundogbendsen.dk/undervisning/beskrivelse/LB1809/>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF email is sponsosred by:
Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure
_______________________________________________
Apertium-stuff mailing list
Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
