On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Jaak Ristioja <j...@ristioja.ee> wrote: > > Use the repository identifier together with the module identifier, if > required. > > Am I correct that what you are currently trying to work around is how > Sword stores the modules on disk? Because I don't see any big > obstacles to communicating the repository information to the user if > multiple repositories have modules with the same identifier. For > example, Portage on Gentoo Linux has recently been using the > ::repository suffix for ebuilds. > > I suggest looking into how other multiple-repository package managers > have solved this and not reinvent the wheel. :)
SWORD already provides a constructor for SWMgr that allows you to specify which directory that manager should store files in. Creating one per repository should be a trivial thing. So why have people long claimed that allowing a single, unified module view would be difficult? This is nothing more than a straightforward process of creating multiple SWMgr objects and taking the union of their modules by combining identifiers in-memory once they've been read from disk (e.g. with a prefix/suffix of the source repository combined with the module identifier). I've never understood what the challenge is that people cite regarding this process. Can someone enlighten me? --Greg _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page