Why would this be needed when we have and use cvs? On 2002-06-19 at 19:55:13 [+0200], openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Hello, > I have an idea that i think would prove to be elegant. it would be an > alternate method of updating our beos apps (similar to reos or > beosupdate). > basically it's for people who want to always stay on the bleeding edge. > we do that by providing an object based update. > we send the compiled objects for each file that changed/added. this would > mean twice the size of the app/lib on the user's hard disc, but also > means less network activity and more elegant updating. instead of > redownloading a 2.2mb app, we only download the 70k that got updated > between "releases". the linking is done in the user's computer, by the > update application (calls gcc/ld/libtool/whatever needed). i think this > is superior to the methods that exist today. > > here's a sample session as i see it :) > - hello > - hi, ip 126.96.36.199 (217/2000) > - whatsnew app2024 29032002 > - sending 2024 29032002-19062002 log > > we then get a log which looks like > add blah.o > del tractor.o > edit stringview.o > del mom.o > > we parse the file and delete every object that has del from our object > directory. > now, we request optimization from the server and size of objects. (we > have the option of size/plain/debug/generic x86 o3/cpu optimized (gcc3 > thinking) ) > the server returns > app2024 ftp://athlonxp.beosupdate.org/2024/blah.o 35271 app2024 > ftp://athlonxp.beosupdate.org/2024/stringview.o 78943 > > we get the objects compressed over the network similar to cvs -z9 > compression. > > when we finish downloading (we even have the progress of download (for UI > app) since we know the size) > we just link it all together (and perhaps run some kind of checksum check > on the generated binary to see that it fits.) and viola, we have the new > app. > > this method is generally good for those who want to cvs update but don't > wanna waste so many cycles compiling, when in fact, only once is enough, > instead of compiling in every user's comp, we do it centrally for them. > the down size is that it would obviously only work for opensource apps. > > anyway, for the server we can use a muscle server. (the main (muscle?) > server basically only checks the ftp directory of the app on request for > obj files created between now and the string the client sends. (it can > cache it later) > or the ftp server can publish the updated apps for the main server. this > is details for later.) > the ftp servers will need to have a constant link to cvs and compile the > new sources. > + some kind of schedule util. > we can make different directories for different gcc flags or like in the > example, different servers. > > this is basically the feature's top design. shouldn't be very complex to > implement, most of the code is available tools. > > what do u think? makes sense? > thanks in advance, kobi.