Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to sales@march-hare.com.
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 12:57:43 +0100, Tony Hoyle <tmh at nodomain.org> wrote: >Bo Berglund wrote: > > >> I would imagine that "ditching" the current use of modules is a bit >> hard. What would happen to those that use such a scheme? >> On the other hand I would *love* a better way to share code between >> modules than what is possible today. >> Could not the exeisting interpretation live on side by side with the >> new one? >> >The problem is the existing code is splattered all over CVS and implemented >differently in different places. It needs to be completely ripped out and >rewritten otherwise it'll just continue to be a source of bugs. I'll do it >in the development branch anyway, but if it's what people want I'll do it >in the release, too. > >Tony > Fair enough, and I only have one single case in all of my servers where the modules file is used. It contains these lines: SSCommon SSReceiver/Source/common SSDocs SSReceiver/Doc StingPlus &StingPlusBase &SSCommon &SSDocs What would happen to this module (StingPlus)? It utilizes the SSCommon and SSDocs modules and we expect them to check out right below the StingPlus main module (there should be 3 submodules in level 1 below the main module). /Bo Berglund