On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Tom Mueller (pkg-discuss) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephen Hahn wrote: > > 12. license as attribute. The license action is currently needed > > because it delivers a payload, but the point on filtering is > > important. We need to discuss whether we need pkg.license and > > to change "license" to "meta ... type=license ...". > > > > > > > 14. Icons. I'll need more use cases/justification of why these need > > to be actions. (How would you identify different icon sizes and > > types?) My preference is to make this kind of information a URL > > tag/attribute, and move responsibility to the client. (Since > > every published file has a URL, that's not as big a deal as it might > > appear...) > > > Here are some reasons for wanting to treat icons like a license (with an > action): > > - offline access. If the image is offline, we'd still like to be able to > bring up the GUI and show icons for installed packages. > - efficiency. The GUI shouldn't have to make separate web requests to > fetch icons for installed packages. (Yes, the icons could be cached).
Personally, I'd prefer that the client just cache them. The advantage of having the client make separate requests for them is that the cli or other clients that don't need them can ignore them easier. Plus I think it would be easier to update them when the icon changes, right? > The published files are named with hash values, right? So referencing an > icon file that is within the package would be difficult. I think that can be dealt with on an api basis. -- Shawn Walker "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
