Re: [basex-talk] Any news regarding increasing maximum node count?
Hi David, > I found in the archive an email indicating that there were nebulous > plans to dramatically increase the total number of nodes that a > database could accommodate, from 2 billion to 8 quintillion. > > Are these plans still in the "nebulous" stage, or is there a more > specific timeframe in mind? currently, the development of BaseX is mainly driven by our own use cases, in which the current max. of number of nodes is completely sufficient. If this should change, be sure I will give you a note. Best, Christian
Re: [basex-talk] 7.8.2 Updating function items
Et voilà...
https://github.com/BaseXdb/basex/issues/939
http://files.basex.org/releases/latest/
Your feedback is welcome,
Christian
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Christian Grün
wrote:
> Hi Marco,
>
>> XUST001 Updating function items are not yet supported
>>
>> when passing an updating function as a value. This used to work neatly from
>> 7.6 at least onwards.
>> I must admit that I'm pretty surpirsed and I'd like to ask where ni the docs
>> I could get more info on that.
>
> the behavior in 7.6 was not clean, which is why it was removed in more
> recent versions. However, the latest XQUF draft (not public yet) now
> provides an "updating" keyword, which can be used to invoke updating
> functions
>
> UpdatingFunctionCall ::= "updating" PrimaryExpr "(" (ExprSingle
> ("," ExprSingle)*)? ")"
>
> Issue 939 will be closed as soon as we have implemented this in BaseX
> [1]. As an alternative, if you set MIXUPDATES=true in BaseX 8.0, you
> won't encounter any restrictions regarding the invocation of updating
> and non-updating functions.
>
> Christian
>
> [1] https://github.com/BaseXdb/basex/issues/939
Re: [basex-talk] apply variable bindings to command scripts
Hi Fabrice,
I'm still hesitant to introduce more features to the command script
syntax, as all of them will be BaseX-specific. But we could interpret
all input as XQuery and execute the resulting XML as BaseX commands.
This way, we could write things like..
{
for $n in 1 to 10
return
}
What do you think?
Christian
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Christian Grün
wrote:
> Hi Fabrice,
>
> I've recorded your feature request in a new issue:
>
> https://github.com/BaseXdb/basex/issues/929
>
> Christian
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Fabrice Etanchaud
> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>> Currently, in order to obtain tailored command scripts, I found the
>> following solution :
>>
>>
>>
>> A template test.bxs file :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> A bash script test.sh:
>>
>>
>>
>> #!/bin/bash
>>
>>
>>
>> DBNAME=de-dpma-u-meta
>>
>>
>>
>> eval "cat <>
>> $(<$1)
>>
>> EOF
>>
>> " | basex -c-
>>
>>
>>
>> And then call :
>>
>>
>>
>> ./test.sh test.bxs
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Could it be possible for the variable bindings to be applied also to script
>> commands,
>>
>> So basex -bDBNAME=de-dpma-u-meta test.bxs
>>
>> does the whole job ?
>>
>>
>>
>> that would work also for commands' sequences like :
>>
>> .
>>
>> or
>>
>>
>>
>> Merci !
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Fabrice
Re: [basex-talk] 7.8.2 Updating function items
acclaim On 04.05.2014 21:57, Christian Grün wrote: Et voilà... https://github.com/BaseXdb/basex/issues/939 http://files.basex.org/releases/latest/ Your feedback is welcome, Christian
