QUOTE (Nonconventionally Creative @ May 22 2010, 04:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Tell me the name of syst 159 off the top of your head.
That's why I thought about doing id-name for the filename.
the user would have to open the relevant xml file to determine syst name.
the folder and filenames actually would have no impact on compiling. the xml could be merged and parsed. all info relevant to making a plug is in the xml. the directory structure would be a product of decompiling a plug or user creation. i think it's a personal thing to keep things organised in directories. the user would also be able to keep other files in the directories. ie a textual description of the resource, concept art, etc. these could be included in the plug repo.
i understand there will be redundancy in the xml, but i think it will normally be negligible.
eg.
/my systems/
/my systems/my system/
/my other systems/
/my other systems/my other system/
/my other systems/128/
/my other systems/Ronald/
QUOTE (Nonconventionally Creative @ May 22 2010, 04:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
With your current view up there, having the individual resources be directories doesn't seem to be doing much good...
i believe it's a personal preference. there's also the version control repository integration. a plug maker could easily check out directories of the plug, without specifying individual files.
QUOTE (Nonconventionally Creative @ May 22 2010, 04:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Edit: I see the spob now, though I'd do it as spob/128.xml, spob/128.pict. The problem with actually representing the image as a separate file is the problem of coalescing duplicates.
images would be specified in the xml. names don't matter, the OS will handle duplicates. multiple xml files can reference a single image. the image will only be encoded once.
QUOTE (Nonconventionally Creative @ May 22 2010, 04:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Oh, you mean actually interpreting the resources themselves, like in EVNEW text (but in xml)? I don't really like that idea,
yeah, that's the idea. what's not to like? you have beer, ya have tv, xbox or something, right? exactly.
QUOTE (Nonconventionally Creative @ May 22 2010, 04:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
but if you do it that way, you'll want to have the raw resource first. For example, you can then do a timestamp check (à la make) to see if you even need to recompile the individual resource.
good idea. do you want to layout the specifications for what you are thinking of? if you can think of anything more efficient or other ideas like that, i'd love to hear.
QUOTE (Nonconventionally Creative @ May 22 2010, 04:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
One last rant: why don't standard programming I/O libraries have print(int num, int base, int digits)? The C++ way is one of the things they only made worse from C. And Java doesn't even have a function for it, unless you go through Formatter.
that's a fair point. all i can think of is backward compatibility, but even that seems a long shot. POSIX compliance?