On Tuesday, December 20, 2011 9:36:36 PM UTC+7, Edward K. Ream wrote: > > > @shadow will *never* be the model for most files because it demotes > structure info to second-class status, namely, personal preference > grafted on to the "real" data. But the *essence* of Leo is that > structure is first-class data. > > @shadow is fine for non-cooperative (private) environments. In that > case, the "preference" structure is, in fact, the only structure there > is. But in shared environments outline structure must be part of each > external file. Thus, sentinels are, in general, essential as well. >
On Tuesday, December 20, 2011 9:41:03 PM UTC+7, Edward K. Ream wrote: > > there is no way, in a cooperative environment, to separate outline > structure from external files, which is the actual intent of these keys. > Thus, the > > keys are an attempt to do the wrong thing. > I'm most likely completely wrong, but it seems to me that the above corresponds to the current reality of Leo's storage implementation. My understanding is as follows - please do let me know if/how I am wrong: given a single user, and never looking at the external files generated @shadow and @thin are functionally equivalent. The difference is how the "view" or outline information (and what other "meta" stuff is stored in sentinels) is stored, the former simply keeping it separate from the content, the latter embedded. This difference is the cause of @shadow's **current** problem of not being able to share that meta information between users, because right now the only way to share such data is via embedded sentinels. But I thought one of the main points of your OP (switching over to the "imagined possible" reality) was the ability to store (almost?) everything related to the content, outside of the individual user's Leo file, in particular the "views" created by that user. Each node has a unique identifier (sha1 strings replacing gnx?) and these data are actually stored outside the Leo files. The input/output routines with the @ <file> files are no longer the "primary canonical" locations, but something like reports from a database, output from compiles - or imports being matched against Leo's nodes by a particular view. The "view" (outline+) data is now an externally stored and therefore shareable data object, kept in the distributed VCS, right? In this model I don't understand the necessity for the data currently carried by sentinels to continue to be stored inside the @ files. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/leo-editor/-/jP6RAf_huDQJ. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
