From: Mike R. <mro...@it...> - 2002-02-12 03:06:25
|
* Carsten Haitzler (ra...@ra...) wrote: > the problem with bitmaps is.. well.. we now are limited to 32 types... :) I used an int purely for simplicity sake, making the bitmask larger would be trivial. This being said I can see what your saying about having to modify edb every time a new database is added. The question we should be asking then is how many database types are there going to be and how often are new database types going to added ? If we did use strings to record type information it would be harder to have two types of information in the one database as Till and Christian observed earlier. We could have records indicating 'Type1', 'Type2' upto 'TypeX' then a count record 'Types' that us what the value of X is. While this will work it seems like a bit of overkill to me when a bitmask would do the same thing but in an easier way. This is about the biggest advantage I can see with a bitmask compared to strings. I like the property idea, version information could be important later on as theme formats change :-) I am glad to see there is a neater way of hiding database records, my way of just filtering out requests for a certain key name seemed a bit icky (but it worked so I was happy). This is just my $0.02. I will hold off changing anything until an agreement is reached. Mike. |