[glideplan_swproj] Re: Importing files

  • From: Ales Zita <ala.zita@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: glideplan_swproj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 23:01:47 +0100

Hi Tom

I've just read the importing files specs and I have the following question:

Do we want to rename the imported fiels automatically ? This way in my
opinion we risk having multiple files with matching content. I mean e.g. if
I load Czech_republic twice , than there's something odd - either have I
twice the same data or two version of the same region (older/newer) at the
same time (except the case of adding information for the same region
maybe).

My sugesstion would be to announce that the file with corresponding name
already exists and let the user decide if he wants to unload the old file
first or rename the new by himself/herself. That way we do not have to
check for duplicities.

I agree with the rest of the specs.

Thx for taking care. It is certainly good idea to have these things settled.

rgds
A.

2012/1/9 Tomáš Zámečník <pulcik@xxxxxxxx>

> Link to the specification:
>
>
> https://github.com/updraft/updraft/wiki/Technical-specification,-Importing-turnpoints
>
>
> > ------------ Původní zpráva ------------
> > Od: Tomáš Zámečník <pulcik@xxxxxxxx>
> > Předmět: [glideplan_swproj] Importing files
> > Datum: 09.1.2012 13:53:32
> > ----------------------------------------
> > Hi all,
> > I created a short technical specification, which describes importing of
> > turn-points.
> > This topic is relevant for all persistent files and we should work with
> them in
> > the same way (e.g. airspace).
> >
> > So please, take a look at this document (it's in our wiki) and write if
> you
> > understand it,
> > if you agree or if you have some improvements.
> > You will not find there nothing surprising or revolutionary, it's only
> about
> > loading files,
> > but it should be specified.
> > Please comment it as soon as possible, I want to start coding the
> importing and
> > displaying
> > turn points.
> >
> > I was thinking again about packages (for a long time). And decided to
> avoid
> > them
> > in this state. They could be potentially very useful, but it's not so
> crucial
> > now.
> > We will be able to add basic package functionalities without great
> changes,
> > if it shows important.
> > Sophisticated packages will be topic in the next version of application.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > To visit archive or unsubscribe, follow:
> > http://www.freelists.org/list/glideplan_swproj
> >
> >
> >
>
> To visit archive or unsubscribe, follow:
> http://www.freelists.org/list/glideplan_swproj
>

Other related posts: