Hi, On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 12:00:52PM +0200, Charly Caulet wrote: > Le vendredi 25 avril 2008 à 19:23 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a
> So we shall stick to single digits : use 2.9.1 instead of 2.10, 2.9.2 > instead of 2.11 ... It will be well sorted by ls. I don't think this is a good option... Things would get *really* ugly when you insert a few hundred new elements :-) And, as Frederick pointed out, it would only work with some collations anyways. > > But you are right of course: We can't achieve full persistence here. > > Either we can make the filenames persist for the duration of the > > session -- e.g. using the subnubers approach -- but loosing them > > when the translator exits. Or ranaming happens automatically > > immediately after any insert/delete. The question is which is the > > lesser evil... > > > > The latter option can be inconvenient in certain situations, and > > somewhat confusing to both humans and certain kind of programs... On > > the other hand, it has the advantage that we always get a 1:1 > > representation of the underlying XML file, without any temporary > > state that gets lost on exit. This is an extremely important > > property IMHO. > > What do you mean "a 1:1 representation" ? I mean that the directory structure always represents exactly what is in the XML file -- nothing less and nothing more. Static numbers would be additional information that is not in the XML file, and gets lost when the translator exits. The same file gets different representations, depending on what numbers were assigned in the particular translator instance. Very undesirable. -antrik-
