[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: checking in links to source control

From: Greg A. Woods
Subject: Re: checking in links to source control
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:59:03 -0400 (EDT)

[ On Friday, September 14, 2001 at 11:59:03 (-0700), Edward Peschko wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: checking in links to source control
> Sorry if I'm not being clear - but to me, serialization is exactly that - 
> taking
> something that is not a file, turning it into a file, and then storing that 
> file for access. 'Deserialization' is the process of reversing this, turning
> a serialized file back into its non-file status.

That's definitely not 'serialisation' (which as a verb is probably the
act of giving some set of things a unique identification that can be
used to put them into a fixed order, though as a noun is simply the
publication in serial form).  I'd call it "adding a level of
indirection", though maybe that's not even an ideal description.....

> And that's exactly what I want to do -  I want to build in serialization
> into CVS.

That's such a silly thing to want to do in CVS that I can't even begin
to explain why it's so.  There are, as I said, literally hundreds if not
thousands of ways to do it.  Some better than others, and many platform
dependent.  I.e. there is no "one true way" to do this kind of thing.

This *is* _the_ perfect example of ideal place for ad hoc solutions.

The requirements for a generic solution are just too unwieldy.  Only you
can invent the right kind of wheel for your specific requirements, and
that generally means what you invent will never be perfect for anyone else.

In fact a re-invented wheel is the singular most elegant solution
possible in this scenario.

Any attempt to hack some half-assed scheme into CVS can only result in
an ugly mess that meets very few people's requirements, and which will
inevitably collides with real-life uses of ad hoc solutions, and which
will causes more confusion than it can ever solve.  Even worse it's
bound to be either highly platform specific, or to require some
additional "little language" be built into every CVS client (not to
mention protocol extensions, etc.).

Why do you fight the easy way so much?

                                                        Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <address@hidden>     <address@hidden>
Planix, Inc. <address@hidden>;   Secrets of the Weird <address@hidden>

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]