On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 11:50:36AM +0200, Christian Stimming was heard to remark: > Cornel DIACONU wrote: > > >This is my question: can anyone give a reasonable and > >TRUE motive for the *** turn over in > >the database format which GnuCash now uses ? I mean I > >really don't see ANY reason at all for this > >*** XML format !!!!! Can anyone > >explain me why is this better than the old format ? > > > See > http://www.gnucash.org/pipermail/gnucash-devel/2000-December/001696.html > and the whole discussion thread there. Quote: > > The binary format was really a dead-end. It was very brittle, with > subtle endian and architecture issues, and continuing to extend it > was going to be an extreme headache. > > (end quote)
Except that this statement is completely incorrect. It wasn't brittle, it had no endian or architecture issues, it was easy to extend (a *lot* easier than the current xml format) and it didn't need to be a dead end. The *only reason* the xml file format was created was so that we could have an HTTP server for gnucash. Unfortunately, this goal was lost, and the current XML format is *not* suitable as a client-server protocol. The binary file format is easier to maintain than the xml, and its *a lot* faster, and tinier to boot. This is not new news; this has been true since the dawn of XML, and some XML projects have moved away from an ascii format to a binary format for speed and compactness (e.g. vrml) The binary format was dropped because once we had a working xml, everyone was too lazy to maintain two different formats. I, for one, would support work to put a good binary file format back into gnucash. --linas -- pub 1024D/01045933 2001-02-01 Linas Vepstas (Labas!) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP Key fingerprint = 8305 2521 6000 0B5E 8984 3F54 64A9 9A82 0104 5933 _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gnucash.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
