From koffice  Mon Aug 02 16:11:22 1999
From: Werner Trobin <wtrobin () carinthia ! com>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 16:11:22 +0000
To: koffice
Subject: Re: RFC: KOffice Storage Structure
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=koffice&m=93361021817925

David Faure wrote:
> 
> Hi.
> 
> Nice proposal !
> I like it a lot.
> 
> > 3) Accessing files:
> > I think it is the easiest way to address the files either absolute or relative
> > (e.g. "/KSpread/part0.ksp", or "picture3.jgp"). If ktar.cpp ensures that the
> > names are unique one could even address the files via the plain name.
> 
> If filenames are unique, then there's no point in the directory-based storage,
> is there ? The document you describe as an example is quite big and complex.
> For simple documents (e.g. only pictures, no embedded parts), dirs might look overkill.
> Not sure...

Yes, I think so too. Maybe we should prefer a totally "flat" structure (no
dirs).
Another possible solution would be to store the pictures and the main document
in
the "base-dir" and store all the parts in one(!) "parts-dir" (I don't know the
"costs" of a dir in a tar file :)

> 
> > P.S. I hope the attachment is not too big :(
> I think attaching in .bz2 is not a good idea. It's not big, so I would
> post it plain text, it's easier to read. (Furthermore, ark doesn't support
> .bz2 it seems)

I thought about that, and as it seems my decision was wrong :)
Next time I'll put a nice HTML-page on my homepage - no need to
spam the list with big attachments - Once again: sorry...

Werner