From: Christian K. <kre...@in...> - 2002-02-09 14:15:48
|
Till Adam wrote: > > # Quoting Christian Kreibich (kre...@in...): > > > I like it. Raster, I noticed you had added similar fields to some of the > > dbs, but the other way round, like /type/bits = 1. Was that for a > > particular reason? Did you want to be able to combine types in one db? > > I was just thinking about that also, while looking at the patch. Maybe > it would make sense to have the type be a bitfield, so that one db file > can contain bg information as well as bits or whatever. The individual > entries would maybe need to be prefixed then, though. It would then not > be hard to merge /split dbs for distribution. I guess a bitmap is a good idea. The check could then be something like a e_db_check_type(E_DB_TYPE_BACKGROUND) predicate and setting a type would just mean flipping the right bit. Plus we'd only need a single key. Cheers, Christian. -- ________________________________________________________________________ http://www.whoop.org |