Tim Ellison wrote:
>> For example, if class X of the main version is not part of j2me,
>> "process(j2me)" would move this file to a subdirectory ".streams/".
>
> Why would you move the files rather than exclude them?
>
> I was assuming that the processor would generate a whole new source tree
> for each process() target, so that you could work on the original
> checked-out file in it's 'canonicalized form' for Big Java work, or
> process("jme") into a new location and work in the non-canonical form
> your Little Java spectacles on. [...]
Neat idea!
I would put the following restriction, though: one should NOT modify
more than one target at a time.
So, you would probably need some way to prevent parallel modifications
in "spectacle views". One way to achieve this:
process(X,target, destination) => Xtarget in a distinct location
and X files are changed to read-only and some tracking file F tells us
about Xtarget's location.
So, you would also need:
release(F) => asks all kind of questions (want to lose changes? delete
files? etc.)
Of course:
revert(F?|destination?) => makes X read-write.
[Hoping this was clear enough... It's not a very good explanation...]
> Agreed. It would be interesting to determine the most effective
> location for those markers (measured by reverse mapping accuracy vs.
> number of markers).
I am a fan of accuracy... Yet, maybe it would be simple enough if a
release was always based on a specific svn URL, then the mark could be
totally exact using svn keywords... :-)
Etienne
--
Etienne M. Gagnon, Ph.D. http://www.info2.uqam.ca/~egagnon/
SableVM: http://www.sablevm.org/
SableCC: http://www.sablecc.org/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
