Am Donnerstag, 24. August 2006 12:51 schrieb Avi Alkalay: > On 8/24/06, Markus Raab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thus means folder keys are not used anymore, and every key has the option > > to > > contain subkeys. It has both advantages and disadvantages: > > + value/comment everwhere > > = berkleydb not very difficult to add > > - filesys, configuration style, sql and many more backends more or much > > more > > complicated > > - how to find out if there are subkeys? > > Folders are too Elektra as the zero number is to mathematics. It is a > balance point, something that defines structure. Anyway, it is unusual to > set values in a folder key, but sometimes needed. Specially the comment > part. Ok, you are absolutely right that the comment part is very nice to have. But we could also introduce a key named like "user/folder/.". (Point for this is the key for the directory?), or any other name. So we should also not forget the priority to have many stable backends in elektra. I dislike a configuration API which forces you to a specific backend. It would end to a yet another configuration thing. > > And also to be more compatible with the Windows Registry, which already > > > > > lets you do this. > > > > I don't think that compatibilty to other registry, is ANY reason to > > something. > > This will help Elektra API to be used as a frontend to access Registry > keys. Elektra will (maybe) never have an importance on windows native apps. It is important that portable apps using elektra run under windows too. But it is definitely NOT important that all features of the winregistry are supported. > > Lets close a 0.6.4 version first, then start working on that. > > > > Yeah, lets finish, but I think we should work on the recursive code not > > in bindings too, this would have following advantages: > > + not needed to reimplement in every backend (KDB_O_RECURSIVE can be > > handled > > in one place) > > + possibility to have linking code there (because walkthrough of all keys > > is > > necessary) > > + possibilty of mounting backends soon (which would be the best feature). > > Lets discuss this in detail past 0.6.4. Ok, let focus on aim for a stable 0.6 release. What to do for that? > We should schedule a formal meeting in a few weeks to discuss things like > that. I would like to! We could also have a meeting for making 0.6 more mature (build system, bugs, backends?). One more question: I would like to revise the doxygen generated documentation (keys are not very clearly and the functions are not easy to find). Should I do it now, or in next branch? mfg Markus ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Registry-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/registry-list
