Jim Blandy <email@example.com> writes:
> them. I think Karl and Ben would say that the hierarchical format ---
> or, more precisely, knowing that the the hierarchical format is
> sufficient --- has really helped them in designing their modules.
It absolutely has.
> Those are all pretty fuzzy arguments. "Well, now we all know it can
> be done --- glad to hear you've persuaded yourself. So, what's the
> best textual format for deltas?"
> I'm not wedded to any particular syntax, but I do think a hierarchical
> form is a good thing.
> - It provides a restricted form for tree deltas that is easier to
> reason about than the less restricted forms. I do think that we
> will eventually care about this.
Although (as Jim points out) it feels like a weak argument to say "We
might care about this someday", I have to agree -- my instinct is also
that it might be important. In general, I think a restriction that
maps so suspiciously well onto the problem is one that shouldn't be
thrown away lightly, until we _know_ that everyone can get along
This is independent of the concern about getting Milestone 1 done, by
> - While none of our consumers require hierarchy at the moment, they don't
> mind it, either.
> - While none of our producers require hierarchy at the moment, they
> don't mind it, either.
What he said. :-)
> So I don't think hierarchy really limits our ability to plug arbitrary
> consumers and producers together. The case to watch out for is a
> consumer that can't easily produce hierarchical changes --- is mod_dav
> such a case?
Apparently, mod_dav is also working hierarchically (not that this was
a design goal of Greg Stein's, it just happens to work out that way).
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:10 2006