[sword-devel] InstallMgr

[Matthew Talbert]

> Does it require a difference (for the C++ front ends) to add support
> for FTP InstallMgr methods than it does for them to add a file://
> version?  It seems that, if so, this is a problem with the design of
> InstallMgr.  I would imagine that the interface between SWORD and the
> application would be identical in all those cases -- all the
> application needs is to retrieve the information and provide a way for
> the user to input new locations.  I get the impression from your
> previous messages that the front ends will need to change when you add
> HTTP support to the library then front ends will need to add another
> portion to their install manager that allows the user to create HTTP
> install locations separate from FTP or file:// ones -- is that the
> case?

The interface is different for local installations than it is for FTP
installations. For local installations, you must create an SWMgr that
points to the location of the modules to be installed, then you can
get a listing of the modules available (but you must be careful to not
augment the path with HOME/.sword or other locations or it won't
work). For FTP, it also creates an SWMgr, but it does it itself, and
exposes the list of available modules. This difference is why Xiphos
couldn't really use a local source until 3.0. No one had figured out
how it was supposed to work :)

Matthew