On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 04:46:13 -0800 (PST) vitalije <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 11:45:56 AM UTC+1, Edward K. Ream > wrote: > > > > So now I am more receptive to these ideas. I haven't followed the fossil discussion too closely, but I'd argue for, rather than adding fossil as a single new data backend, revisiting and refreshing (or replacing) Leo's capability of using a "DB" backend, with a view to making it a pluggable layer where you might be plugging in to fossil or git or sqlite3 or MongoDB etc. etc. I think we had a working proof of concept use of Zope Object Database (ZODB) at one point. I'm not sure that's still an interesting target, but certainly a good place to review. Another question is whether the integration is just at the load/save level or at the node traversal level, i.e. constantly using a data backend. I think if we started with the load/save level, the sweet spot might be some subtree / node level live refresh from a data backend. For diffs, seems an xml to yaml conversion would achieve that? Like I say, haven't been following the conversation too closely. Cheers -Terry > > Edward > > > Glad to hear that. > -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
