Malte Timmermann wrote:
So I guess wrt version control, the API approach with an extension for
loading/saving in folder structure is the better approach.
i'd agree with that.
FlatXML has the disadvantage that files can be very big when binary
content is encoded and included.
Changing one word in content.xml would result in storing everything
again, while the API approach would only result in modified content.xml
and maybe some metadata.
But of course, there are also advantages in FlatXML:
- supported via vanilla OOo, no extension needed
actually, not quite.
it is not supported out of the box, you have to set up a XSLT filter (the
trivial transformation that just copies all its input).
- only one file, so no complex change sets with multiple files in
version control
Not everything can be done with FlatXML files.
- Digital signatures only work on ODF packages
(So it also wouldn't work with directories)
- not sure about document specific persistent configurations
Malte.
regards,
michael
--
"Writing introductions to monads seems to have developed
into an industry." -- Dan Piponi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscr...@openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-h...@openoffice.org
