RE: [Webware-discuss] Mapping URIs to multiple sources of code

[Geoffrey T. <gta...@na...>]

Matt Feifarek wrote:
> | How about a bunch of symbolic links from each of the 
> deployments to the
> | "master" servlets?  At least that way there's only one 
> master copy of the
> 
> Yeah, we thought of that... it's of course unix only, and 
> it's a bit of a
> hack, but it would probably work just fine. We'd rather see a 
> more "real"
> solution, I guess.

We do all of our development on Windows, and I can't tell you how many times
I've cursed Microsoft for not supporting symbolic links.  Many times they
would have enabled an easier, simpler solution.

I say, if you know you're going to be on Unix, then take advantage of what
the OS has to offer.

> 
> 
> | Another approach is to use a source control system that 
> supports branching
> | and merging in an intelligent way.  Perforce has great support
> 
> This is also a good idea, that would solve the specific 
> deployment, but
> doesn't actually address the problem (URI mapping). We DO use 
> cvs, which has
> at least some support for that. I suppose with some fancy 
> branching/tagging,
> it could work great.

CVS's branching is pretty basic compared to Perforce's though.  Perforce
keeps track of exactly which revisions of which files have been merged into
one another, and you can tell it, "this change on branch A shouldn't be
merged to branch B" but still be able to merge future changes to the same
files.  I don't believe CVS does any of this -- in fact, I don't even think
it keeps track of what changes have been merged at all.  Also, Perforce's
branching takes place in the regular directory namespace, so you can (for
example) have one subdirectory branch off another, with minor changes to
files in each branch.  Definitely off topic for this list, but I thought I'd
put in a plug for a good product (and Perforce is what introduced me to
Python originally!).

> 
> 
> | It's worth a try.  The idea sounds good.  You may run into 
> some technical
> 
> Cool. That's what we were hoping to hear. Well, actually, we 
> were hoping to
> hear "I already did that- here" but, this is pretty good.

No such luck :-)

- Geoff