[CrackMonkey] [mailman-owner@zork.net: CrackMonkey Subscribe Notification]

[Joakim Ziegler]

On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 12:12:37AM -0700, Michael Jennings wrote:
> On Monday, 31 July 2000, at 18:52:23 (-0500),
> Joakim Ziegler wrote:

>> I'd also like to know what the speed advantages are of using a
>> binary database to hold lots of images in a monolithic file are, as
>> compared to having the images in separate files with known
>> filenames.
 
> The binary database holds configuration data, not images.  There are
> currently no images whatsoever in the .db files.  They store
> settings...known file types and what to run them with, what icons each
> type should have, where each icon should go in each view, where the
> view last was on the screen, etc.  Mostly numerical data.

I'm still interested in why it's impossible to use an in-memory
representation which isn't the same as the on-disk representation.

-- 
Joakim Ziegler - Helix Code web monkey - joakim at helixcode.com - Radagast at IRC
      FIX sysop - free software coder - FIDEL & Conglomerate developer
            http://www.avmaria.com/ - http://www.helixcode.com/