On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Ashod Nakashian <ashodnakash...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>Design-wise I'm a bit surprised that the choice ended up being rolling >>a custom file format. > > Personally I know not of any library that can deliver the requirements that > we need (outlined in the doc). Again, if the requirements > are in question, let's simplify them. If there is such a library, suggesting > it will save us a lot of time and effort. Otherwise, using a > Tar-like container will just not cut it. On the other hand, the proposed > custom format is rather simple and its code shouldn't be > complex. In fact, I suspect Tar is more complex (considering it must store > more information than we do).
I am not sure what Daniel meant, but I had always just assumed we would simply compress the files in the existing pristines. I think your document does a nice job explaining why that is not good enough. In that sense, I would also say that I was surprised by the choice of a custom file format, but that does not mean I would question it. I think your document does a nice job in revealing some of the subtle complexities of this feature. That gives me more hope on progress towards a solution. -- Thanks Mark Phippard http://markphip.blogspot.com/
