On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 11:50:48AM -0400, Derek Atkins was heard to remark:
> I, too, like plan A. However instead of thinking about files, I'd
> prefer if we did keep things in the abstract 'book'. A book could be
Yes. Although its kind of hacked up at the moment, and needs cleaning,
writing to a 'file' is just another 'backend'. The splitting-up operation
I propose all happens above this interface.
(However, the naming convention for the different 'files' should be consistent
with what different backends allow-- and I'm not clear on that ...)
> don't know, and you shouldn't care. However, whatever we do should be
> something that is tied into the backend. It would be nice if closing
> books might even be a backend function, rather than an engine
> function. I'm not sure.
Good point. I'd forgotten. The sql backend might function more effiieciently if
things weren't split up. ...
--linas
PGP signature
