blob: 2e4f851c8b81161dba599aa5d5bdeaf00f8a14bf (
plain) (
tree)
|
|
On Monday 06 July 2009 12:48:39 W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 08:26:24AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > "W. Trevor King" <wking@drexel.edu> writes:
> > > On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 10:19:35AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > > Instead of a separate command for each output format, could we have
> > > > a single "produce a static report of the bug database" command, and
> > > > specify output format as an option?
> > >
> > > Do people like this architecture better than my be-xml-to-mbox
> > > approach?
> >
> > I think this question is illuminated by the related question: Is mbox
> > output a static report, or another read-write data store?
>
> Gianluca is clearly thinking about a static report:
You are right, static, but not exactly a report as I think Ben is thinking
>
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 10:50:17PM +0200, Gianluca Montecchi wrote:
> > The goal is to be able to do something like "be html /web/page" to have
> > in the /web/page directory some static html pages that basically are the
> > dump of the be repository, much like ditz have
>
> I think truly interactive frontends like Steve's working on need to be
> build on top of libbe directly, since they'll need to make lots of
> small changes to the database, and it's to slow to be reloading the
> database for every change. Static dumps like my mbox or Gianluca's
> html could just parse the xml output of `be list' and other be
> commands.
Ok, but if I want to have an html dump that is browseable, I need to parse the
xml. Am I correct ?
If yes, should not be easiear to use directly the libbe ?
bye
Gianluca
_______________________________________________
Be-devel mailing list
Be-devel@bugseverywhere.org
http://void.printf.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/be-devel
|
