1 |
Richard Hughes wrote: |
2 |
> I'm slightly worried about it being called a service. Is it going to |
3 |
> be a new process that just does the mapping or is this a bad choice of |
4 |
> words? If it is a new process then I'm not sure such a thing will |
5 |
> catch on. |
6 |
|
7 |
I'm not yet sure about how a mapper will keep it's data |
8 |
fresh as the use of it is dependent on that. |
9 |
Ignore my "service" for now. |
10 |
|
11 |
|
12 |
> I'm also worried that a package manager has to read in and parse |
13 |
> thousands of small files. |
14 |
|
15 |
While you mention "package manager" - with the current concept |
16 |
the data will not be precise enough for use with a package manager. |
17 |
|
18 |
|
19 |
> Why did you decide to write each project as |
20 |
> a single xml file? |
21 |
|
22 |
- The other 99% of the database stay valid XML if a single |
23 |
file is invalid |
24 |
|
25 |
- To better fit the version controlled environment |
26 |
|
27 |
|
28 |
> Parsing and reading 10,000 files (in multiple directories) might take |
29 |
> a few seconds, and would have to be copied into memory (few Mb) to |
30 |
> query quickly. |
31 |
|
32 |
Correct. |
33 |
|
34 |
|
35 |
> Which has to be invalidated if any of the files or |
36 |
> directories change. Why didn't you just put them in a sqlite database |
37 |
> that can be queried in a few ms, without dragging in an xml parser? |
38 |
> Also 10,000 files take up way more space (and takes longer to install |
39 |
> and update) than a single database file. |
40 |
|
41 |
I like your idea about sqlite. Maybe keeping the data to edit XML |
42 |
and query and sqlite export snapshot is something to try. |
43 |
|
44 |
|
45 |
> XML might be |
46 |
> useful for storing the data, but not for querying. |
47 |
|
48 |
Good point. |
49 |
|
50 |
|
51 |
|
52 |
Sebastian |