Hi,
Well, we've gone around on this ... given the tradeoffs and potential portability issues we've decided to break our separate application logic into different subdirectories inside restxq after all.
It's no big deal ... only a matter of making the best choice we can for something we expect to grow (in both size and complexity) -- fairly rapidly, at least potentially.
Thanks again, Wendell
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Christian Grün christian.gruen@gmail.com wrote:
If Arve's suggestion of using symlinks to manage the encapsulation amounts to your second suggestion, I concur that sounds like the simplest approach. It's our job to see that the RESTXQ paths don't overlap in any case isn't it? :-)
True, symbolic links can be used, too (at least, I guess, on Linux & Unix-based systems; you may have to try and see what happens). I’m not 100% sure what you are after here.. What’s the main reasons for not leaving all RESTXQ files in the restxq (sub)directories?
-- Wendell Piez | http://www.wendellpiez.com XML | XSLT | electronic publishing Eat Your Vegetables _____oo_________o_o___ooooo____ooooooo_^