From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,80b3e504140e89fd X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-24 12:13:13 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!skates!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Config_Files proposal Date: 24 Jun 2002 15:04:45 -0400 Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (skates.gsfc.nasa.gov) Message-ID: References: <4519e058.0206190708.2ef205e4@posting.google.com> <3D10AF1F.3000805@attbi.com> <3D10B728.BD5E08C3@san.rr.com> <3D17361B.8F32277D@san.rr.com> <3D175E2F.851567D8@san.rr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.gsfc.nasa.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: skates.gsfc.nasa.gov 1024945924 604 128.183.220.71 (24 Jun 2002 19:12:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.gsfc.nasa.gov NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Jun 2002 19:12:04 GMT User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26666 Date: 2002-06-24T19:12:04+00:00 List-Id: Darren New writes: > Stephen Leake wrote: > > I guess I did not make an explicit requirement on the web page that > > the API be independent of the file format, but I thought that was an > > accepted principle. > > Great. Now, my API wants to store binary, As base64; no problem. > and I don't want to have to give keys to every value, hmm. I guess you mean you want a record or array type accessed by a single key. I guess I'll agree; that has an impact on the file format. However, that's not in the list of "things we are talking about". It contradicts API requirement 21. > and I want to be able to store the file as part of a larger file. Say what? If the "larger file" has a sufficient protocol, you can do this now. > My point is that the file format makes certain assumptions. You're > already assuming heirarchical keys, each with a single textual > value, that the order of keys is independent, etc. You just haven't > made that especially concrete. Well, that's been in the API requirements from the start, and not seriously challenged. > I think it's a good idea to make it concrete before deciding on the > file format. But since you're doing the work and I'm just > complaining, this is merely a suggestion. :-) Actually, it is concrete; API requirements 18 thru 21. If you are suggesting that these need to change, we can talk about that. I guess I need to update the API requirements list, and show those that we have consensus on, and those that are still under discussion. -- -- Stephe