From: Tom Sawyer <transami@...>
Date: 2003-01-27T09:19:11+09:00
Subject: Re: Can we attack the 'not enough libraries' thing straight on?

On Sunday 26 January 2003 04:55 pm, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> A complex graph is harder to browse than a tree.

it would still be browsed just like a tree, only some packages would appear 
under multiple nodes.

> As for searching, I don't see how a search would work any better or worse
> on a graph, a tree or a flat list.

if a package is afixed to a single category although it provides functionality 
in other areas, you would not find via a categorical search for these.

> Now, having a tree will not compromise a search, but having a (complex)
> graph will compromise browsing.  I vote that we avoid too-complex a
> graph.

perhaps allowing for at most 3 categories a package can belong too?

> I agree that the search option should be at the top.  It takes almost no
> room and it's very useful.

> Take the extreme case, just for illustration, where everything is is under
> every single category.  If you search for any given category, your results
> will contain everything, making the search useless.
>
> I vote that we maintain the graph simple.

there are always trade-offs, arn't there? :-)

so how many Rubyists are watching the super-bowl? or actually, how many 
aren't?

-- 
tom sawyer, aka transami
transami@transami.net