On 02/13/2017 03:28 AM, Peter Uhnák wrote:
> I do not think so but if people show me otherwise I could follow that.
Well, in most languages (their package dependencies) one can just
specify name of the project and a version. The location/how to load it
is pulled from a central repository.
So that's why I thought that maybe the MetaRepo could be used in a
similar fashion.
You are correct that the MetaRepo could accomplish this using a
ConfigurationOf (the current scheme basically does follow this model),
but this is a bit of a hack ..
A better solution is to use a "project specification object" --- many
other languages use their own flavor of "project specification object"
to define the versions.
Having project specification objects means that a whole host of project
meta data can be included in the object as first class objects without
having to hack around with adding methods (by convention) to a
ConfigurationOf
> In the long term the the MetaRepo should be replaced by a repository
of project specification objects
That also seems needlessly complex; basically just ConfigurationOf
separated to parts. I do not want to restrict the users, but with a
central repo the most common use case shouldn't be 10 lines of
configuration.
I don't agree that this would be needlessly complex ... the
implementation I use with tODE leverages gh-pages on github and STON ...
having first class objects for project specifications, means that tools
can be built to work directly with these objects, instead of loading a
ConfigurationOf and hoping that the expected meta data is there ...
Dale
