On 22.03.2012 16:23, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Ashod Nakashian
> <ashodnakashian_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
I'd like to point out that there /is/ a library that handles storage,
lookup, access and deletion of many small files in a single large one
quite efficiently. Well tested, too, widely used, and configurable with
regard to space reclamation. Moreover, we're already using that library.
It's called SQLite.
Received on 2012-03-22 16:37:32 CET