From: Carsten H. (T. R. <ra...@ra...> - 2008-07-24 15:20:25
|
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 10:22:50 -0700 Michael Jennings <e-...@ka...> babbled: > On Monday, 07 July 2008, at 14:23:51 (+0200), > Dave Andreoli wrote: > > > hmmm, this is a problem... we can use: > > item: "/theme/applications" "e etk ewl"; > > > > but then we also need multiple "application_version" fiels, like: > > item: "/theme/e_version" "xxx" > > item: "/theme/etk_version" "xxx" > > item: "/theme/ewl_version" "xxx" > > 1. Use the hierarchy you already have. Don't invent silly additional > separators (like '_') for no reason. > > item: "/theme/application/e/min_version" "0.16.999.043"; > item: "/theme/application/ewl/min_version" "0.5.1"; > > 2. Don't duplicate information. Think like a database: normalize. > The existence of "/theme/application/<foo>" implies that > "/theme/applications" would contain "<foo>". > > 3. This whole mess is a very bad idea. Handling versioned > dependencies is a much, much harder problem than you realize. And > restricting what applications are allowed to peek at a theme's bits is > silly. Just make the bits available to whatever application wants to > use them, and don't try to reinvent dependencies. true - re-inventing is bad... BUT then how will you download a theme and plonk it in ~/.e/etk/themes or whatever - and know if it works or not? you would require every theme to be packaged! :) not sure that's really viable... :) -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ra...@ra... |