Hi,
* Ralf Gerlich -- 11/3/2008 5:29 PM:
> why do you take this to the -users list again, where it is obviously
> off-topic as a development issue and after I had taken the discussion
> where it belongs: to the -devel list?
Sorry, that was an accident. I had intended to stop posting to this
fruitless thread and wanted to do that with a final conclusion from
my point of view (including "technical" arguments, which you had
totally avoided until then, while demanding them from me). And a
conclusion is better on an outer thread level, than nested deeply
inside. I don't sort *-devel and *-users to different dirs on this
machine, and just thought the duplicate mails would have the usual
cause. I responded to the same thread that I had chosen first,
and that was the one where others had already posted.
> So as long as you do not _prove_ us wrong, there is no reason to
> conclude that our proposal is nonsensical. I will show that what you did
> is far from proving us wrong.
Well, your only argument was "too dangerous to change now", which
I've debunked later. We just don't use anything of that yet, do we?
And who are all those experts, who were also not keen to let us
know any of those technical arguments? Sure, I might be wrong in
some of mine, and I'm always willing to learn and change my mind.
That's what discussion is about. And presenting something as
"proposal" usually means that it's up for debate. It just ended up
as a pretty one-sided discussion, with arguments on my side, but
none on yours. (Also note that I was fairly friendly at the
beginning -- I only became annoyed after my arguments were
countered with demanding *more* arguments, rather than dealing
with them.)
> I am full-quoting your mail, so all developers not on the users-list can
> see what we are talking about. That should be also in your interest,
> because your and my comments can now be found in additional places, so
> you and I can occasionally point to it ;-)
:-P
>> Airports/L/O/X/LOXA.ils.xml
>> /LOXA.parking.xml
>> /LOXA.rwyuse.xml
>> /LOXA.twr.xml
>> /LOXA.threshold.xml
>> /LOXN.ils.xml
>> /LOXN.parking.xml
>> /LOXN.rwyuse.xml
>> /LOXN.twr.xml
>> /LOXN.threshold.xml
Also note that three letters of this prefix are identical and thus
redundant, and that there are several files with long names that
differ only in one letter somewhere in-between. Add this to my
technical arguments. Call it non-technical, if you want. :-)
> Your personal taste is not in itself a sufficient argument for a change
> in this context.
Yes, that's bad. We should work on that. ;-)
> Just because it might not cost anything doesn't mean that it's better.
It is better. Why do you think we have Sound/, Nasal/ Dialogs/ directories
in aircraft dirs, even if there's often only one file in them? It's
about abstraction, clear structure and quick finding. From a pure
technical point of view there's not much difference. FlightGear wouldn't
care, and even thrown together there would often still be fewer files
than in your Airports/L/O/X/ directory. But that's not the point, IMHO.
> Saving space might not be the only argument in favour of "twr", and even
> without such an argument, I can see no important point against our
> proposal here that would warrant a change.
twr kind of hurts. ac may also be a very often used abbreviation for
aircraft in aviatics, but I'd still not call the Aircraft/ dir ac/,
the Airports/ dir apt/, etc. But this was never my main complaint
anyway.
> This is what I wrote:
> > So if there is a strong argument in favour of the changes you proposed,
> > I'm open to such a last-minute change, but otherwise I'd rather leave
> > the structure as it is.
Yes, you demanded more arguments after I had given some already, without
bothering to add some of yours, and implying that mine weren't "technical".
I found this a bit funny and surprising. Abstraction, cleanliness etc.
are IMHO very technical.
> However, "easy path creation" wasn't the goal of the structure. An even
> easier path would have been "Airports/KSFO/*.xml" or
> "Airports/KSFO.xml", but that would have contradicted the intent.
I would say that file access (logic and speed) is a rather important
point of data storage. And very technical, too. All on one level would
be slow and might be too much for some file systems.
> So this reduces it all to combining the files of one airport into one
> file, which we already discussed and dismissed for reasons of differing
> sources of information and which you did not propose in your "final"
> comparison anymore.
Yes, because the need to have many files per airport was actually your
only argument. I based my final suggestion on that "requirement". But,
ok, let's go with the on-file-per-airport approach. I actually find
Curt's Airports/L/LO/LOX/LOXT.xml suggestion the sanest of all.
> $FG_ROOT/Aircraft/b/o/1/0/5/splash.rgb
> $FG_ROOT/Aircraft/b/o/1/0/5/thumbnail.rgb
> $FG_ROOT/Aircraft/b/o/1/0/5/fdm.xml
> $FG_ROOT/Aircraft/b/1/9/0/0/d/splash.rgb
> $FG_ROOT/Aircraft/b/1/9/0/0/d/thumbnail.rgb
No, the equivalent to your suggestion would actually be:
$FG_ROOT/Aircraft/b/o/1/bo105.splash.rgb
$FG_ROOT/Aircraft/b/o/1/bo105.thumbnail.rgb
$FG_ROOT/Aircraft/b/o/1/bo105.fdm.xml
$FG_ROOT/Aircraft/b/1/9/b1900d.splash.rgb
$FG_ROOT/Aircraft/b/1/9/b1900d.thumbnail.rgb
Both would be stupid, of course.
m.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
