On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 14:56:55 -0700 (PDT) "Edward K. Ream" <[email protected]> wrote:
> So let's refocus on the future of Leo. What problems with Leo (or .leo > files) would DB's be likely to solve? This would be a good topic to > discuss at the sprint. Your comments, please. That was why I said you'd have to stop thinking about Leo if you wanted to learn about the functionality of DBs, which is no compulsory :-) Leo's data storage needs are very simple, a list of nodes, a list of edges. DBs are one very easy way to get networked storage, and they also offer opportunities for versioning. git is another networked out of the box data store that might work. I think DB's relevance to Leo are networking and versioning, not table relating and querying. I don't think this line of thought is about fixing Leo - it's ability to load and save data locally's fine, apart from multi-outline save speed, and that's not a huge issue. So this is about new capabilities, networked, possibly collaborative data, etc. If we want things to fix, we can look at the list SegundoBob's generating :-} Cheers -Terry -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
