On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Edward K. Ream <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Kent Tenney <[email protected]> wrote: >> Wow, I feel like the Rabbi in the following joke: > > Yes. Good joke. BTW, I often feel clueless in these discussions > myself. Furthermore, I often forget that we've *had* these > discussions. > > I think that's ok. Leo is not going to change in any "big" way unless > the way forward is so simple and compelling that it will be impossible > to forget: like "webs are outlines in disguise." So far, nothing > remotely that simple has appeared.
One very simple thing that can be done very easily would be to just store the Leo data as it is, with no thought of distribution or collaboration "within the database implementation" -- then you just store .leo files in the database, produce the external files as you currently do, and collaborate with the external files the way you do now. That would create a database backend that could be extended gradually. As long as it is done in a way that's basically "the same as" a .leo file, any more fundamental reengineering for distribution and collaboration would be no more complex than converting from the model of the Leo file would be in the first place. And in the meantime, people might bang on the backend in interesting ways while keeping its compatibility with the Leo app and its file format. If people show ways of doing distribution and collaboration that way, you can ponder those without worrying about impact on standard Leo. Seth -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
