On Freitag, 11. Mai 2007, you wrote: > Hej! > > [..] > > The second step would be to generate the sql from an abstract definition > > (a custom format, or XML with XSL scripts), the old architecture will be > > remain and would be still used for database creation. > > Correct me if I'm visualizing this incorrectly.. All the sql is > modular and there's an xml file containing information on the different > sql modules that ties into the install process for selecting what's needed? > > I'm all for the modules... If the mapping of the modules to install > functionality is 1 to 1.. I'd vote for a more simple format than xml..
I plan to stay with the current script table separation, e.g. core, extra, serweb and presence. For 'advanced user' it would be of course possible to edit a config file. The benefit of XSL is that you don't need to write an own parser and can use existing scripts.. The XML dialect i would like to choose would be really simple. But i'll think about this, and do some tests with other approaches. Cheers, Henning _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
