Re^2: RFC iEngine

[muscipula]

in reply to Re: RFC iEngine
in thread RFC iEngine

If I were to use iEngine, it would have to be through scripts rather than a shell, where I could try more than once to produce my desired result. It's just never going to be one-pass for me.

In fact this is exactly what I have in mind. The shell as I imagine it, would behave as a script editor allowing you to build scripts using scripts that can link and interact with the shell.

A dynamic shell that does not simply rely on what you want it to do, but interact. Use template scripts designed to work in a set way, for example cascading style sheets that allow you to build the look and feel of your HTML content output.

I can't really recycle what I am trying to say, but it you look at the way I described a very basic example of interacting with iEngine in my original post you can see once the iEngine is set up, you build on it with your own styles, layouts and content for your pages.

And yes content is important and iEngine can easily accommodate how you organise your content as basic information, images and whatever. Building scripts that collate the data and store it become a function/mode of the shell. Wherever the data is stored may not matter so much other than when you are dealing with your content, then the iEngine shell is in content mode, ie.

ready content
content search external year 1959 'andrew david sprott'
content found 1 hits
content show all
hit1 born 16:12 high wycombe
hit1 done
content store hit1 birtdates 'Andrew Sprott'
content done
ready

Not exactly what I am trying to say, but the point I make is why bother with filing systems when you can name everything that you use.

Andrew

[Anonymous Monk]

Not exactly what I am trying to say, but the point I make is why bother with filing systems when you can name everything that you use.

Um, isn't that the definition of a filing system?

[muscipula]

You do get the gist of what I am saying. What is the point in nit picking, just because I say names, you assume that entails everything that encapsulates a filing system which it does not.

File systems rely on a hierarchal structure and do not really have any relation to the data and the way you work with it. What I am suggesting is a symbolic connection between what you do and the way that you want to do it.

Andrew

[Anonymous Monk]

You do get the gist of what I am saying. What is the point in nit picking, just because I say names, you assume that entails everything that encapsulates a filing system which it does not.

Um, the point is clarity, both of thought, and expression.

When you say : why bother with filing systems when you can name everything that you use.

Its like saying : why bother naming stuff when you can name stuff that you name.

Yeah, I like rambling too