Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [hackers-il] a simple linux registry

Expand Messages
  • Muli Ben-Yehuda
    ... time Oh, come on, don t be shy - tell us what you really think about it! Cheers, Muli -- Muli Ben-Yehuda http://www.mulix.org |
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 26, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:00:37PM +0300, Elad Efrat wrote:
      >
      > On Sun, 11 Apr 2004, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
      >
      > > I saw an interesting project lately: a Perfect Configuration System
      > > [tm], but designed with simplicity in mind: Each key resides in its own
      > > text file, and the registry sits in its own tree structure.
      > >
      > > http://registry.sourceforge.net/
      > [...]
      >
      > i think it's gay ugly stupid pointless messy huge and a waste of
      time

      Oh, come on, don't be shy - tell us what you really think about it!

      Cheers,
      Muli
      --
      Muli Ben-Yehuda
      http://www.mulix.org | http://mulix.livejournal.com/
    • Tzafrir Cohen
      ... BTW: that page is not currently availbe for some reason. Try http://sf.net/projects/registry ... Ugly, stupid, pointless: maybe. Huge: sure it isn t. Look
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 28, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:00:37PM +0300, Elad Efrat wrote:
        >
        > On Sun, 11 Apr 2004, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
        >
        > > http://registry.sourceforge.net/

        BTW: that page is not currently availbe for some reason. Try
        http://sf.net/projects/registry

        > [...]
        >
        > i think it's gay ugly stupid pointless messy huge and a waste of time

        Ugly, stupid, pointless: maybe.

        Huge: sure it isn't. Look at the size of the code of the library. Comare
        to gnome's gconf .

        Oh and: Why do you choose to waste your breath and time on it?

        Cheers.

        --
        Tzafrir Cohen +---------------------------+
        http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir/ |vim is a mutt's best friend|
        mailto:tzafrir@... +---------------------------+
      • Beni Cherniavsky
        ... If it becomes a problem, ReiserFS is definitely a solution. Enabling this sort of things is the purpose that initially motivated ReiserFS. ... I find the
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 30, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Tzafrir Cohen wrote on 2004-04-11:
          > I saw an interesting project lately: a Perfect Configuration System
          > [tm], but designed with simplicity in mind: Each key resides in its own
          > text file, and the registry sits in its own tree structure.
          >
          > http://registry.sourceforge.net/
          >
          > The only disatvantages I can think of is the disk space consumption.
          > I wonder How much can ReiserFS help here? XFS?
          >
          If it becomes a problem, ReiserFS is definitely a solution. Enabling
          this sort of things is the purpose that initially motivated ReiserFS.

          > But the atvantages are obvious: everything remains a file:
          >
          > * can use whaever permission scheme is used on the system
          > * moving a subtree is an atomic operation.
          > * I wonder if symlinks are sensible
          > * Can be easily manipulated with the tools we all know
          >
          > Comments? Flames? Will you use it in your own project?
          >
          I find the key format to be suboptimal.

          - What's that about 20..39 for binary formats and 40..254 for text
          formats? Why?!? Why not use something extensible, like names?
          Why not use something established, like MIME types?

          - I don't think a standard header would do anybody good. Without a
          header, existing file types could be used with full support from
          existing tools (think images - how many image viewers skip everything
          until ``<DATA>``?).

          - Without a header, we don't need the `rg` command. `ls`, `cat`,
          etc., SHOULD be directly useful on the "registry", otherwise you
          lose half the benefits.

          Let's see what it takes to get rid of the header:

          - Format version - not relevant if there is no registry format.

          - Data type & comments - if you need these at all, it makes more
          sense to use a gconf-like model where the expected type and
          key meaning documentation are stored separately as a "scheme".
          That way a user overwriting the key won't lose the documentation.
          That's good.

          - If you do need the metadata per-instance of the key, the ideal
          option would be to use subfiles of the file, as will be possible
          in reiserfs4 (any file also behaves as a directory). Otherwise,
          less beautiful arrangements are possible...

          That's it - no headers! No headers => no need for a special tool and
          to a great extent even no need for a library!


          --
          Beni Cherniavsky <cben@...>
          Note: I can only read email on week-ends...
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.