27. Februar 2007 12:51 Joan Valduvieco Llopart wrote: > On Friday 23 February 2007 13:51:56 you (?) wrote:
> > I never even submitted an ITP since elektra was not/is not stable enough > > w.r.t. its API. > > Seems that Simon Law was the owner and it was submitted 636 days ago... > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=311371 > > How stable is the API right now? I'm using elektra on an embedded device. > Now it works for me so I could not upgrade but I'm interested.. :) Actually its very stable in its concept, data types and idea how it works. And we won't have a renaming again like the registry->kdb. Things that might change: * removal of all kdb* functions except Open, Close, GetKey, GetChildKey, SetKey, SetKeys The others can be provided in a compatability layer for easy c usage. It is needed to have a transaction aware Get and Set (which can't be done if kdbLink and so on can't be in a single Set). Complete synchronisation (Get and Set in a single command) are out of scope of elektra. * using KDBHandle* in all functions and kdbOpen returns KDBHandle* This is needed because e.g. SetKey needs to change the Handle when mounting a backend. *other things are minor, e.g. that keyDup returns a duplicated key and that keyName returns the name and not the very long and wrong keyStealName. > > Easier: do include kdb in the libelektra? package, instead of > > libelektra-utils. > > That way, usage in embedded systems will be easier (less resource > > consumption) > > There is nothing against including *small, needed* binaries with a > > library package. > > I would prefer to have libelektra with the library and libelektra-utils > with kdb and utilities needed to administer kdb. Would be clearer and > probably libelektra-utils will contain more binaries in the future. I don't think that it will get more binaries, but I agree that it is much clearer. > But including kdb in libelektra main package also has some advantages, at > least right now. So if everyone agrees I'll include. :) I think you have done it right, including it is not necessary. > Resource consumption is more or less the same from my point of view as far > as I am not including /var/lib/dpkg, /var/cache/apt and documentation on my > device... :) What do you mean? thank you Markus Raab ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Registry-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/registry-list
