Alaric B. Williams
Sat, 24 May 1997 08:32:36 +0000
> ABW> A versioning container should be optional. It's defined entirely
> ABW> in terms of the underlying system. If it is used to wrap a
> ABW> "file" like a document or similar, rather than something conforming
> ABW> to the "group of files" protocol (directory/folder/archive file),
> ABW> it acts much as I have described.
> Certain it should be optional, but um, why do we want to define it
> at a lower level? We could write this in CLOS quite happily, although
> we'd have to use no-applicable-method or use a condition to trap it.
Doh, have I put my foot in it *again*?
I did say "it's defined entirely in terms of the underlying system", meaning
it's sort of /written/ at the user level rather than as a part of the filer,
although the filer should, IMHO, have some hooks to make version control
> ABW> So Treasure Island would be put in one version controller as a group of
> ABW> files. Ugdating a subfile would cause version 2 of the subfile to be created,
> ABW> and a new version of the directory that contains the newest versions of
> ABW> everything.
> Well, if you look at the cltl2 path-name support it already has versioning
> that seems rather similar to that.
I've heard about that, and I don't really like it much - it's too built
in. Not everything is VCed and not everything that is VCed is VCed in the
same way, I think. That's why I dropped version numbering for an arbitary
modification graph :-)
Alaric B. Williams (email@example.com)
---<## OpenDOS FAQ ##>---
Plain HTML: http://www.delorie.com/opendos/faq/
Fancy HTML: http://www.deltasoft.com/faq0000.html