On Fri, 2012-01-13 at 17:06 +0100, Winfried Donkers wrote:
What do you mean with "The current format does not look efficient to
me." Efficient in terms of what?
Just that the file size caused by the xml-tags exceeds the file size
caused by the data itself. I have nothing against xml and I am no expert.
For me there is no need to change it, it's purely that if there is a
preference to change the format, now is a good time.
Heh - well, I've nothing against re-using the format, parsing it etc.
there are real costs to new formats whenever they are used.
I would just ignore my rather vague (and unrelated) worries wrt.
performance - and get your changes in (they sound great). Later we'll
need to re-work the configmgr code / parser to cope with different
hierarchies separately (or something). IMHO there is no need for some
layering scheme for label dimensions eg. ;-) It's work for the future.
HTH,
Michael.
--
michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Context
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.