On Tue, Apr 03 2012, David Bremner <david@tethera.net> wrote:
> My thinking was that it was useful for the disk format to have a bit
> more information in it so that we could more easily change the interface
> in an upwardly compatible way. If at some point in the future we do have
> more general batch command processing, it would be nice not have to
> change the file format again, particularly for dump files.

I concede that it's possible to move forward with this idea in a way
that satisfies an immediate need while still being flexible going
forward.

With that in mind, I think I stand by my suggestion that the form should
match exactly the notmuch subcommand format.  Even considering the
technical issues that Jani brought up, I still think it makes the most
sense to imagine generic batch processing handled by the top level
binary.  And in that case the most logical format for the input is
probably just that of the CLI arguments.

Just out of curiosity and for the sake of argument, if we were going to
design a server/batch processor from the ground up would it make sense
to use a format like this, or would we better off opting for some other
more established protocol?

jamie.