Adam R. B. Jack wrote:
It's really not that much more than that.
Sophisticated systems that are reliable are built upon simplicity not
complexity
I agree. I'd like to think of what we are doing as laying out a simple file system, and later building services that index/query. Compare this to /cvsroot, cvs protocol (clients to a remote server), then viewcvs (a 'server' behind HTTP, implemented as a client to CVS). Each built on top of the other, nice and simple, nice and powerful at each level. Compare this to a www site w/ search, text indexing, whatever. Each layer is independent, independently specified, and independently useful.
Yep.
I feel that if we nailed down the first, we can build the second and third server side, as and when need arises. Metadata-less at the lowest level, optionally richer as on moves up. Simplicity is the key at each level, I completely agree w/ Jason there.
Nick is right ... we need to specify based upon requirements,
This is my primary focus. I looking from the point of view of something similar to a cvs server and cvs client - and from that perspective, looking down with respect to the requirements of the underlying systems and protocols. This usecase approach is much more about identifiying needs that can be used to validate that stack of simple facilities.
Cheers, Steve.
and code (whose-ever) can follow.
regards
Adam
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
