Ok I will go for the compile time and remove the package so that this is even more stupid to manage. On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, one baseline with many groups or many baselines would like... From a metacello perspective, I'd do one baseline with several groups, because if both are in the same repo, there is no nice way to reference each other, other than hardcoding paths.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 8:19 PM, Gabriel Cotelli <g.cotelli@gmail.com> wrote:
I will use one Baseline with several groups. And choose to load by default (if only runtime support or runtime plus generator)
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:02 PM, Stephane Ducasse < stepharo.self@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
I'm developing a small library named Chrysal (to be announced when ready - the successor of Cocoon) that supports configuration files (and conversion of strings into our lovely objects).
The idea is that based on description objects, a class is generated statically with all the conversion logic. Now a configuration for an App is a subclass of one minimal class called ChrysalConfiguration. and this class is packaged into the ChrysalRuntime package this is the only thing needed (I could remove it by automatically recompiling even more code but looks a bit terrible at the end).
Now my question. Should I propose two BaselineOfs? One for the Generator and one for the Runtime? I thought so. And generator should depend on the runtime.
Stef
--
Guille Polito
Research Engineer
Centre de Recherche en Informatique, Signal et Automatique de Lille
CRIStAL - UMR 9189
French National Center for Scientific Research - *http://www.cnrs.fr <http://www.cnrs.fr>*
*Web:* *http://guillep.github.io* <http://guillep.github.io>
*Phone: *+33 06 52 70 66 13 <+33%206%2052%2070%2066%2013>