Hi John,
> I'm going to let you CVS these... After you decide
> how you want to package them... As one xml file,
> several xml files, an add-on etc.
Thanks. I'd prefer if they were simple xml 'searches' just like the
others, that way there is really no special difference just because of
how the inner workings are implemented.
I don't think it's wise to branch off and build another tree of search
types when it can be implemented as readily as it is.
You mention here "as one xml file" - how would you go about building
multiple searches into a single file? Would it just have several
//search nodes ("a whole new world...")?
Thanks,
Shawn K. Hall
http://ReliableAnswers.com/
'// ========================================================
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe visit:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dqsd-users
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=8601
