On Aug 5, 2009, at 9:18 AM, 西门烧雪 Simon wrote:
Need to know: Is this an archived report or archived license analysis
data? If the data is archived the original report could theoretically
be regenerated. That is, it could be regenerated as long as the
software writing the report hasn't changed significantly.
Answer: As you have mentioned, data+engine=report. So, either side of
the equation is good. The left side (data+engine) is even better.
Need to know: Reports contain many links. Are the links expected to
work?
Answer: Yes.
This is good because both of these can be addressed the same way -
keeping the results of all analyses. On http://fossology.org/
task_list you will find the following (rather terse) item:
"Add capability for reanalysis without breaking data persistence ie.
do new analysis without removing previous analysis results."
I would have mentioned this earlier but I wanted to be sure I
understood what you were going after. The flow is really:
engine -> results -> report
So by not throwing away results (even after a reanalysis), the same
report can be generated and all the links will work. This also allows
you to change the engine (new license engine, or new licenses, or
change parameters on license engine) and compare the new results to
the old results.
How's that?
I'll update the item on http://fossology.org/task_list after I figure
out how to make this all work. It's conceptually simple, but the
devil is in the details.
Bob Gobeille
_______________________________________________
fossology mailing list
[email protected]
http://fossology.org/mailman/listinfo/fossology
