Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 20:42:21 +0200 From: Benjamin Lutz <mail@maxlor.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Cc: Thomas Sparrevohn <Thomas.Sparrevohn@btinternet.com>, Michel Talon <talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr> Subject: Re: DPS Initial Ideas Message-ID: <200705132042.26167.mail@maxlor.com> In-Reply-To: <200705131258.50309.Thomas.Sparrevohn@btinternet.com> References: <20070512004209.GA12218@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <20070513103757.GA33322@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <200705131258.50309.Thomas.Sparrevohn@btinternet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart1204437.PcLmCfjE24 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Sunday 13 May 2007 13:58, Thomas Sparrevohn wrote: > Using XML for INDEX are a very good idea mainly because it allows > "ports" to interface in an easy way to external tools - e.g. java > frontends - web browsers etc, etc. However there are drawbacks - Yet > I feel that the discussion about what tool to use as indexing are > completely misplaced if the only point is that somebody likes SQL > better than a directory tree. I'd have said that using XML for INDEX is a bad idea, because INDEX can=20 then no longer be easily processed with any of the tools in the FreeBSD=20 base system. With the format it uses now, I can easily grep, awk, etc=20 it. If you need an XML version of INDEX, it's easy to have just these=20 tools build one for you though. Not to mention that INDEX is already big enough as it is, imo. I don't=20 see why it should be bloated even more with redundant information. Cheers Benjamin --nextPart1204437.PcLmCfjE24 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBGR1wSzZEjpyKHuQwRAo3AAKCSjPk9KNk/bBvLF8DuZ6g9N8xD6wCbBw/I 53yqAAWQB2cJ30jN4KZ2URg= =6Zl8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1204437.PcLmCfjE24--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200705132042.26167.mail>