ports structure

[Matthew D. Fuller]

On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 08:28:06AM -0700 I heard the voice of
Kris Kennaway, and lo! it spake thus:
> On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 12:05:04PM +0200, Oliver Breuninger wrote:
> > 
> > with an amount of 8.500 ports and 60 categories, it 
> > should be better to use a tree orientation then a
> > flat structure.
> 
> There is broad agreement that a 3-level structure is necessary (and a

[ Speaking entirely from the peanut gallery, since I don't have the
requisite expertise or, at the moment, time ]

I disagree.  I think going further than we currently have means we need a
N-level structure.  Almost certainly one where N can differ in different
parts of the tree.  And possibly even one allowing mixing ports and
categories.

E.g., if [ABC...] are categories and [abc...] are ports:
ports/
  A/
    B/
        C/
            e/
        c/
        d/
    a/
    b/
  D/
  E/
 [...]


The latter, though, may founder on the shoals of usability within the
filesystem metaphor, or require more in the way of front-end
construction.  Ugly.

-- 
Matthew Fuller     (MF4839)   |  fullermd at over-yonder.net
Systems/Network Administrator |  http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/

"The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I
      haven't figured out how to light the middle yet"