On 10/15/2014 03:57 AM, Edward K. Ream wrote:
This is an Engineering Notebook post. Feel free to ignore it unless you
have a deep interest in bug #69.
You mean Issue #35, not Issue #69.
Issue #69 is "leoBridge leaves .leo open"
Issue #35 is "leoBridge sometimes assigns the same GNX to two dis
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 11:43:59 -0500
"Edward K. Ream" wrote:
[snip]
> > But, perhaps the above is naively simplistic.
>
> It seems rock solid to me. The post pass frees us from *any*
> assumptions about ids and timestamps.
I meant simplistic in terms of my thought that maybe the
scanning-for-
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:07 AM, 'Terry Brown' via leo-editor
wrote:
> My brother Tim in New Zealand sends me a .leo file. Current time
> comparison:
>
>Chicago 10:48 am Wednesday
> Auckland 4:48 am Thursday
>
> Depending on daylight savings time, there's a 17-18 hour window in
> which I
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 11:08:54 -0500
Kent Tenney wrote:
> > perhaps not standards-friendly enough for Kent
> :-]
>
> now, I don't want to be the standard-bearer for standards if alone.
> Does everyone else prefer an evolved gnx over uuid?
:-) I'm still not convinced there's any need to change th
> perhaps not standards-friendly enough for Kent
:-]
now, I don't want to be the standard-bearer for standards if alone.
Does everyone else prefer an evolved gnx over uuid?
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Edward K. Ream wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Zoltan Benedek wrote:
>
>> I d
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:21:37 -0500
"Edward K. Ream" wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:18 AM, 'Terry Brown' wrote:
>
> >> > So for maximum code cleanliness Bob's fix could be removed.
>
> >> I don't see how that statement can be correct. Each invocation of
> >> Leo must be based on a unique ti
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Zoltan Benedek wrote:
> :-) It was only an idea.
>
> Many thanks for the English correction.
It wasn't a correction. I often shorten or edit comments when replying to them.
EKR
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"leo
:-) It was only an idea.
Many thanks for the English correction.
--
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 leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Zoltan Benedek wrote:
> I don't understand much of the topic, but I know a way to reduce the length
> of an uuid, if it helps...In this way we get [a length] near to the current
> 18-19 character length [of] timestamp.n
Oh, the power of collaboration. Many th
Hi,
I don't understand much of the topic, but I know a way to reduce the length
of an uuid, if it helps.
The result of transformation is a string id of 22 character length,
containing only the characters:
0123456789abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXY
The result is a unique id a
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Kent Tenney wrote:
> Ah, sentinels! I live in an @auto only world, I forget about sentinels,
> can't comment on the aesthetic importance of their format.
>
> I would see no reason for the . component, would prefer a canonical
> uuid from which I can pull date and s
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:18 AM, 'Terry Brown' wrote:
>> > So for maximum code cleanliness Bob's fix could be removed.
>> I don't see how that statement can be correct. Each invocation of Leo must
>> be based on a unique timestamp.
> That's not really an absolute...Having a system that generat
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 06:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
"Edward K. Ream" wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 8:28:05 AM UTC-5, Terry Brown wrote:
>
> > I don't think the post-scan does require Bob's always incrementing
> timestamp fix, I think the post-scan is a more general solution which
> addresses th
Ah, sentinels! I live in an @auto only world, I forget about sentinels,
can't comment on the aesthetic importance of their format.
I would see no reason for the . component, would prefer a canonical
uuid from which I can pull date and source machine.
Although automation via LeoBridge may currentl
On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 8:28:05 AM UTC-5, Terry Brown wrote:
> I don't think the post-scan does require Bob's always incrementing
timestamp fix, I think the post-scan is a more general solution which
addresses the ".leo files from other sources" aspect of the duplicated gnx
problem, as w
On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 8:13:25 AM UTC-5, Kent Tenney wrote:
>
> (I'll let go of this soon, I promise)
>
> > not visually acceptable
>
> Who sees them when?
> My understanding is that they are only visible when looking
> at the xml in a Leo file, am I missing a usage which directly
> in
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 03:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
"Edward K. Ream" wrote:
> This is an Engineering Notebook post. Feel free to ignore it unless
> you have a deep interest in bug #69.
>
> Bob has just reported that the post scan works for him. That's
> great, but I would like to eliminate the post scan:
On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 5:57:00 AM UTC-5, Edward K. Ream wrote:
> Evidently, ni.toString is more complex than it needs to be...we could
eliminate ni.toString entirely, and replace it with ni.tupleToString::
Without committing myself to eliminating the post pass, I have replaced
ni.toStri
(I'll let go of this soon, I promise)
> not visually acceptable
Who sees them when?
My understanding is that they are only visible when looking
at the xml in a Leo file, am I missing a usage which directly
involves people? My impression is that the xml file hasn't
had people friendliness as a pri
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Kent Tenney wrote:
> You're sure this level of complexity is required ...
> timestamped uuids won't work?
Yes, uuids would work, but they are not visually acceptable, imo.
BTW, we must ensure that context (commander) is never None in the
vnode ctor: otherwise pot
You're sure this level of complexity is required ...
timestamped uuids won't work?
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Edward K. Ream wrote:
> This is an Engineering Notebook post. Feel free to ignore it unless you
> have a deep interest in bug #69.
>
> Bob has just reported that the post scan work
This is an Engineering Notebook post. Feel free to ignore it unless you
have a deep interest in bug #69.
Bob has just reported that the post scan works for him. That's great, but
I would like to eliminate the post scan: it is *almost* never needed and it
slows down *every* load of a .leo file
22 matches
Mail list logo
