Richard Hughes wrote: > I'm slightly worried about it being called a service. Is it going to > be a new process that just does the mapping or is this a bad choice of > words? If it is a new process then I'm not sure such a thing will > catch on.
I'm not yet sure about how a mapper will keep it's data fresh as the use of it is dependent on that. Ignore my "service" for now. > I'm also worried that a package manager has to read in and parse > thousands of small files. While you mention "package manager" - with the current concept the data will not be precise enough for use with a package manager. > Why did you decide to write each project as > a single xml file? - The other 99% of the database stay valid XML if a single file is invalid - To better fit the version controlled environment > Parsing and reading 10,000 files (in multiple directories) might take > a few seconds, and would have to be copied into memory (few Mb) to > query quickly. Correct. > Which has to be invalidated if any of the files or > directories change. Why didn't you just put them in a sqlite database > that can be queried in a few ms, without dragging in an xml parser? > Also 10,000 files take up way more space (and takes longer to install > and update) than a single database file. I like your idea about sqlite. Maybe keeping the data to edit XML and query and sqlite export snapshot is something to try. > XML might be > useful for storing the data, but not for querying. Good point. Sebastian
