[asdf-devel] :logical-hostname

[Robert Goldman]

On 3/30/10 Mar 30 -11:58 AM, james anderson wrote:
> 
> On 2010-03-30, at 16:42 , Robert Goldman wrote:
> 
>> On 3/30/10 Mar 30 -9:29 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info
>>> <mailto:rpgoldman at sift.info>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>     Question:  should we raise a style warning if the user supplies a
>>>     logical pathname that does not comply with the ANSI spec?  I  
>>> would
>>>     prefer that we do that.
>>>
>>>
>>> The first question is whether we are going to provide a logical  
>>> hostname
>>> or whether instead we will allow the user to provide a full logical
>>> pathname translation. That is
>>>
>>> :logical-host "CL-PPCRE"
>>>
>>> versus
>>>
>>> :logical-path "CL-PPCRE:MY-DESIRED;SET;OF;VIRTUAL;DIRECTORIES;*.*.*"
>>>
>>> The latter is trickier and proner to break. If we use the former  
>>> we can
>>> provide two sets of translations
> 
> it may be prone to break, but that just means one must pay attention.
> 
> it would be ok if, given just the host name, asdf were to assert  
> translations which are the equivalent of the current binary mappings.
> if the argument is a translation specification, there is no reason  
> not to believe it and apply it as given.
> 
>>
>> I agree.  In particular, I have vague memories of differences between
>> ACL and SBCL on how to handle the *.*.* versus *.*, but this is  
>> lost in
>> my neural network.
> 
> my experience is that it depends entirely on whether the runtime  
> supports versions at all.
> if one intended a logical host translation spec to behave "the same"  
> on a runtime which supports file versions as on one which does not,  
> one has to express the respective mappings correctly.

I believe that is correct.  I think that on at least one of these
platforms, it is customary to rewrite

"**;*.*.*" to "**/*.*"

to ensure that the version field is thrown away.

best,
r