uniquely naming all objects and using 'get the id of object <name>' instead of using any IDs at all would seem to solve this problem...
of course would have to be a convention when starting a project. why wouldn't this work? On 24 January 2012 13:20, Bob Sneidar <b...@twft.com> wrote: > Yes the more I think about it, the more tedious it becomes. It seems the > only way to do multiuser dev is to have the source stack available to a > kind of checkout engine. A dev would have to check out an object at which > point it would be unavailable to any other user. And you would have to have > a running copy that was the exact replica of the original including ID's. > Not sure how to do that. > > Way back when some made the argument that it was a bad idea to use ID's as > references to objects. Now it seems we understand much more how true that > is. We are beyond the point of know return now. :-) > > Bob > > > On Jan 24, 2012, at 11:59 AM, Pete wrote: > > > Bob, > > I think you'd have to find some way to preserve object IDs or a lot of > > stuff would break. Datagrids, for example, store the row template as a > > long id. And, as you pointed out, behaviors. > > > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > -- Stephen Barncard San Francisco Ca. USA more about sqb <http://www.google.com/profiles/sbarncar> _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
