[OPEN-ILS-DEV] Proposal: Versioned Add-on Packages

[Scott McKellar]

--- On Fri, 2/20/09, Mike Rylander <mrylander at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Mike Rylander <mrylander at gmail.com>
> <mck9 at swbell.net> wrote:
> > --- On Thu, 2/19/09, Mike Rylander
> <mrylander at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip: proposal on how to make IDL files easier to
> upgrade in
> > the presence of customizations>
> >
> > To summarize my simple-minded understanding of your
> proposal:
> >
> > -- Represent standard IDL classes in one file;
> > -- Represent extension classes and site-specific
> classes in a
> >   separate IDL file;
> > -- Use a third IDL file at runtime;
> > -- Regenerate the third IDL file as needed, by merging
> the first
> >   two whenever either of them changes.
> >
> 
> Yes.  Though there would be a file per change, generally
> one per
> add-on or local customization.

Okay, so the customizations would be stored as a series of diffs,
or patches, or something like that, rather than a single file.
When it's time to regenerate a working IDL file, we apply the
patches, in the appropriate sequence, and then add the results to the
standard IDL file.  At least conceptually.  I won't quibble over the
exact mechanism.

Conceptually -- at least in the initial proposal -- the IDL merge
process would copy the standard IDL without change, and then append
some other stuff based on the customization diffs.

Scott McKellar
http://home.swbell.net/mck9/ct/