[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       fossil-users
Subject:    Re: [fossil-users] C API
From:       sky5walk () gmail ! com
Date:       2012-01-07 23:53:29
Message-ID: CAFkD5vufswE8Ufur7Fq__TZoMkcvnxsaOdnZ3C1X=GWngt9epA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Maybe I am being overly simplistic, but I think of fossil as a SQLite
database that has stored procedures.
Wouldn't it be easier to extend fossil's command set to SQLite's?
I'm sure the "fossil ui" feature would be a winner in SQLite ;)

On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Stephan Beal <sgbeal@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Chad Perrin <code@apotheon.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 06:50:22PM +0100, Stephan Beal wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> > Search the archives for this group for many very long threads on this
>> > topic. Management Summary: it can't be done without what amounts to a
>> > complete rewrite, which would be a huge amount of work requiring a good
>> > deal of knowledge of how fossil works internally.
>>
>> Okay, but . . . what about just a general C or Ruby API?
>
>
> My point was: there isn't one, and won't be one until someone volunteers for
> the task (and manages to pull it off). Fossil is implemented as a monolithic
> application, not an app on top of a library, and internally it is not at all
> set up to be run "like a library." Yes, we would all (or almost all) like to
> see it be refactored as a lib/app combination, but it would require a huge
> effort, far beyond what any of the current contributors can commit to.
>
> --
> ----- stephan beal
> http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/
> http://gplus.to/sgbeal
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fossil-users mailing list
> fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
> http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
>

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]