Re: [Scrollkeeper-devel] Porblem with temporary files creation

[Malcolm T. <ma...@co...>]

On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 08:10:11PM -0600, John Fleck wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-10-22 at 00:09, Dan Mueth wrote:
> 
> > 
> > For (2), I'd be interested to hear arguments for or against it.  We always
> > planned to turn ScrollKeeper into a proper library, but started with
> > scripts so that it would be simple and easy for people to use with help
> > browsers written in different languages or using different XML libraries.  
> > The script approach won't work when ScrollKeeper gets more complex, so the
> > scripts would eventually have to be replaced by one or more libraries.
> > Right now, I'm starting to wonder if using scripts and temporary files was
> > more trouble than it was worth.  Is there a value in keeping the scripts
> > and temporary files, or do people think we should turn ScrollKeeper
> > strictly into a C library which passes XML trees around?
> > 
> 
> If we have the hacking resources (do we?) I'd like to see it turned into
> a library.

Scrollkeeper already has most of the infrastructure to be a library (it
even builds one correctly). Before going the whole way down that path, I
want to look at Mikael's comment about Yelp startup times. It sort of
surprises me that not having the files in /tmp makes it so slower, since
that is awfully close to just a file copy. Something is going on there
that I do no understand yet.

Malcolm

-- 
The cost of feathers has risen; even down is up!