On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Ashod Nakashian
>>Design-wise I'm a bit surprised that the choice ended up being rolling
>>a custom file format.
> Personally I know not of any library that can deliver the requirements that we need (outlined in the doc). Again, if the requirements
> are in question, let's simplify them. If there is such a library, suggesting it will save us a lot of time and effort. Otherwise, using a
> Tar-like container will just not cut it. On the other hand, the proposed custom format is rather simple and its code shouldn't be
> complex. In fact, I suspect Tar is more complex (considering it must store more information than we do).
I am not sure what Daniel meant, but I had always just assumed we
would simply compress the files in the existing pristines. I think
your document does a nice job explaining why that is not good enough.
In that sense, I would also say that I was surprised by the choice of
a custom file format, but that does not mean I would question it. I
think your document does a nice job in revealing some of the subtle
complexities of this feature. That gives me more hope on progress
towards a solution.
Received on 2012-03-22 16:23:46 CET