Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!killer!texbell!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Devices in general Message-ID: <3066@sugar.uu.net> Date: 7 Dec 88 13:49:34 GMT References: <5816@louie.udel.EDU> <3061@sugar.uu.net> <4972@bsu-cs.UUCP> Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston, TX Lines: 40 In article <4972@bsu-cs.UUCP>, dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: > In article <3061@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > [some name-calling because zoo won't write its archives to standard output] ...and won't read files or archives from standard input, etc... > The reason zoo archives aren't written to standard output is because > doing so requires sequential writes. If they were, updating an archive > would require copying the entire archives. This would mean that you > could not manipulate large archives in limited disk space. > Database handling programs in general don't write purely sequentially. This is a bit of a straw man. Consider... You can maintain the archive any way you like it, but having an option to write it out as a stream may well save on disk space. Just ask anyone who's used cpio. How about: 1> run zoo -stream files >PIPE:x [switch windows] Kermit> send pipe:x Yes, when you just want to add a file to an archive, it's more efficient to do it in place. On the other hand, the most common mode of using zoo is all-or-nothing. It's more often used as an archiver than a database. Finally, since zoo is mainly a PC product... calling it pc-ware is accurate. I apologise for the word "bozo", though. It was uncalled-for. PS: is there a program that'll generate a list of filenames suitable for input to 'zoo I'? This is a very cpio-ish option, you know. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today? Disclaimer: My typos are my own damn busines#!rne