Maybe I am being overly simplistic, but I think of fossil as a SQLite database that has stored procedures. Wouldn't it be easier to extend fossil's command set to SQLite's? I'm sure the "fossil ui" feature would be a winner in SQLite ;)
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Stephan Beal <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Chad Perrin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 06:50:22PM +0100, Stephan Beal wrote: >> ... >> >> > Search the archives for this group for many very long threads on this >> > topic. Management Summary: it can't be done without what amounts to a >> > complete rewrite, which would be a huge amount of work requiring a good >> > deal of knowledge of how fossil works internally. >> >> Okay, but . . . what about just a general C or Ruby API? > > > My point was: there isn't one, and won't be one until someone volunteers for > the task (and manages to pull it off). Fossil is implemented as a monolithic > application, not an app on top of a library, and internally it is not at all > set up to be run "like a library." Yes, we would all (or almost all) like to > see it be refactored as a lib/app combination, but it would require a huge > effort, far beyond what any of the current contributors can commit to. > > -- > ----- stephan beal > http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ > http://gplus.to/sgbeal > > > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
