savingStandalone message

[Richard Gaskin]

Ali Lloyd wrote:

 > I was thinking a parameter array would be better than many additional
 > params. That way, additional info is cheap.
 >
 > So currently the proposed params are:
 > - current build platform
 > - current build target/architecture (to disambiguate between 32 bit/64
 > bit/both)
 > - total number of standalones to build
 > - which standalone of the total is being built
 > - build folder

That all sounds very good to me.

 > Richard, what's the rationale for having the target folder before the
 > standalone is built, considering you get the folder as a parameter to
 > standaloneSaved? It *sort of* strikes me as a recipe for disaster, but
 > that's just a feeling I'm getting.

I was actually thinking of the other message, standaloneSaved. 
Currently we get an incomplete path, and have to guess what the part 
will be for each OS.  Most of the time we can guess correctly, but if 
that ever changes we need to guess again.  If we just had the complete 
path to the folder containing the freshly-build executable we'd be done 
with guessing altogether.

Middle ground: if we kept the partial path as it is now, and added a 
platform param to standaloneSaved as proposed for savingStandalone, and 
if that param was also the exact name of the target subfolder, I'd be 
quite happy.

-- 
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
  ____________________________________________________________________
  Ambassador at FourthWorld.com                http://www.FourthWorld.com