Gerald Champagne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm interested in this because the storing everything in one file
> would make the important file larger, and therefore more difficult
> to maintain backups.
The first step is going to be switching so that the "named thing" is
actually a directory. So if you used to have accounts.xac, you'd now
have ./accounts.xac/. Inside that would be all the subfiles (and
maybe even subdirectories) that we need to keep track of everything.
Initially, there will be ./accounts.xac/data which will contain
*exactly* what your current .xac file contains, along with transient
lock files.
I understand the appeal of embedded filesystems, but I really don't
think that right now their "convenience" outweighs their obfuscation.
The filesystem is a good simple database, I'd rather use it as one.
Your second question about size is a good one. Initially, I'm not
planning to do anything about that, but in the medium run, I'd like to
open up the discussion of the comparative merits of combining some set
of RCS/xdelta/gzip/bzip to get compression and versioning. I'd like
to consider this in the context of perhaps even moving to a text
format file similar to the export format I already wrote. If we're
using b/gzip, then size might not be an issue, at least not for the
files once they're written, but we'll still have to consider carefully
Linas' correct concerns about handling full filesystems gracefully...
--
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930
--
Gnucash Developer's List
To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
