RE: Re: "Retrieve Revision as..." default file name

> If Java folks have problems with this, they can always point the file 
> browser to a different location in the "Retrieve Revision as..." 
> command...?

Sure. When I added the RetrieveAs functionality I simply extended the 
existing Retrieve functionality with the Save dialog, thus it also uses 
the same naming convention. I can see that it doesn't necessarily make 
sense to use that convention as a default if the user is likely to save 
to a different directory or otherwise affect the target filename anyway.

I definitely do not think however that we should change the naming 
convention of the dialog-less Retrieve functionality, at least not in a 
way that will leave the extension intact. Java development is definitely 
not the only environment where the sheer existence of a file with a 
certain extension has an effect. Another example I could think of off 
the top of my head for illustration would be CvsGui macros: I've got the 
Macros subfolder of my WinCvs installation under version control 
(pointing to my own "intermediate" repository, in order not to annoy you 
folks too much... ;) ). Every file ending in .py or .tcl will 
automatically be loaded on next reload/restart... I'm dead sure there 
are tons of environments similarly affected by the existence of files 
with known extensions.
BTW: the reason that ViewRevision uses a different naming convention is 
that it is intended for passing files to an associated application that 
might potentially reject the passed file if it doesn't have the expected 
extension, or if it doesn't reject it it might refuse to handle it 
correctly in some other way (e.g. missing syntax highlighting, etc.).

Thinking about it, using the ViewRevision naming convention for the 
RetrieveAs mechanism is probably not a bad idea at all...


> To make things [over-?] perfect, this could be a configurable option 
> where we could specify three placeholders for ORIGINAL_NAME, REVISION 
> and ORIGINAL_EXTENSION. (Might be a bit overkill to have a pref for 
> this, though...)
> Or maybe a simpler option that allows to choose between 
> "foo.#.rev.extension" and "foo.extension.#.revision" would be 
> sufficient (should be a per-sandbox setting)?

I *do* think that this would be overkill indeed. ;)

Cheers,

Oliver
----	------------------
JID:	[email protected]
ICQ:	18777742	(http://wwp.icq.com/18777742)


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/NhFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/