how to force a package to be dirty?
Ken G. Brown
When I store data into the class variable, it doesn't appear to make the package dirty, how do you force that?
Or should I be thinking of some other way?
Thx for any tips.
Ken
David T. Lewis
One approach is to store the data in class methods rather that in variables.
For example, you can use #storeString to convert data into strings, and save
these in the methods.
Dave
Colin Putney
> One approach is to store the data in class methods rather that in variables.
> For example, you can use #storeString to convert data into strings, and save
> these in the methods.
To amplify a bit, MC only versions Smalltalk source code, not
arbitrary objects. If you want to version something in MC, you'll
have to turn it into source code, as David suggests. You could then
create a class-side initialize method that executes the storeStrings
and stores the result in the class variable.
Hope this helps,
Colin
Ken G. Brown
I don't quite understand the store strings option, I'm guessing it means somehow programmatically modifying the method source code to make MC save it.
Seems kinda messy.
Is there any other way to se MC to store objects with versioning? eg. a Dictionary
There was an external file versioning option in MC 1.5/1.6 I think.
How would you do it? I just want to save a Dictionary of several Workspace script texts with versioning.
Thx,
Ken
>Hope this helps,
>
>Colin
>
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Monticello Development" group.
>To post to this group, send email to montice...@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to monticello-de...@googlegroups.com.
>For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/monticello-dev?hl=en.
stephane ducasse
> I have a class that I want to use for global storage of data that I would like to version control with MC.
I do not think that this is supported.
>
> When I store data into the class variable, it doesn't appear to make the package dirty, how do you force that?
>
it would mean to raise event each time a class variable is stored so this is not something you want.
> Or should I be thinking of some other way?
>
> Thx for any tips.
> Ken
>
>
stephane ducasse
>>> One approach is to store the data in class methods rather that in variables.
>>> For example, you can use #storeString to convert data into strings, and save
>>> these in the methods.
>>
>> To amplify a bit, MC only versions Smalltalk source code, not
>> arbitrary objects. If you want to version something in MC, you'll
>> have to turn it into source code, as David suggests. You could then
>> create a class-side initialize method that executes the storeStrings
>> and stores the result in the class variable.
>
> I don't quite understand the store strings option, I'm guessing it means somehow programmatically modifying the method source code to make MC save it.
> Seems kinda messy.
> Is there any other way to se MC to store objects with versioning? eg. a Dictionary
what colin want to say is that you can version a textual representation of your objects and execute it during your initialize.
> There was an external file versioning option in MC 1.5/1.6 I think.
I do not know and indeed I would love to have a connection with svn or git to version resources
>
> How would you do it? I just want to save a Dictionary of several Workspace script texts with versioning.
I would create methods representing the script and install them.
This is not nice but so far the only way.
>
> Thx,
> Ken
Colin Putney
> How would you do it? I just want to save a Dictionary of several Workspace script texts with versioning.
Make it a class with a method for each script. What else is a class
but a dictionary of scripts?
Colin
Ken G. Brown
Ken,
from my iPhone
Ken G. Brown
Ken,
from my iPhone