Re: [hackers-il] a simple linux registry
- On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:00:37PM +0300, Elad Efrat wrote:
>BTW: that page is not currently availbe for some reason. Try
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> > http://registry.sourceforge.net/
> [...]Ugly, stupid, pointless: maybe.
> i think it's gay ugly stupid pointless messy huge and a waste of time
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?
Tzafrir Cohen +---------------------------+
http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir/ |vim is a mutt's best friend|
- Tzafrir Cohen wrote on 2004-04-11:
> I saw an interesting project lately: a Perfect Configuration SystemIf it becomes a problem, ReiserFS is definitely a solution. Enabling
> [tm], but designed with simplicity in mind: Each key resides in its own
> text file, and the registry sits in its own tree structure.
> The only disatvantages I can think of is the disk space consumption.
> I wonder How much can ReiserFS help here? XFS?
this sort of things is the purpose that initially motivated ReiserFS.
> But the atvantages are obvious: everything remains a file:I find the key format to be suboptimal.
> * 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?
- 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
- 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.
- 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...