pathnames

[Alaric B. Williams]

> JH> The exception would be that possibility for reversible execution that you
> JH> mentioned.  I guess in those limited contexts you might want versioning on
> JH> everything.
> 
> I'm not sure why you want this extra lowlevelness, wouldn't a transluscent
> versioning container do the trick?
> 
> Just forwards all method calls onto the most recent version, unless
> you use its versioning-api?
> 
> Maybe I've missed the point.

That's what I'm aiming for now.

A versioning container should be optional. It's defined entirely
in terms of the underlying system. If it is used to wrap a
"file" like a document or similar, rather than something conforming
to the "group of files" protocol (directory/folder/archive file),
it acts much as I have described.

If it wraps a group of files, then it tracks modifications to it's children
by making a new version of the group, too.

So Treasure Island would be put in one version controller as a group of
files. Ugdating a subfile would cause version 2 of the subfile to be created,
and a new version of the directory that contains the newest versions of
everything.

OK?
 
> Brian
 
ABW
--
Alaric B. Williams (alaric@abwillms.demon.co.uk)

   ---<## OpenDOS FAQ ##>---

Plain HTML: http://www.delorie.com/opendos/faq/
            http://www.deltasoft.com/faq.html

Fancy HTML: http://www.deltasoft.com/faq0000.html