Subj : Re: JSLibs
To   : Deuce
From : Badopcode
Date : Tue Feb 28 2012 11:16 pm

Wow!  Not the type of response I expected. Didn't mean to piss you off.  I
mean I have no problem with a debate.  Or even a project leader telling me no
because I say no... but being blasted with a cynical circular logic
explanation like I'm a overly excited child... not cool.
Well this definitely curbs my enthusiasm.


 >   Re: Re: JSLibs
 >   By: Badopcode to Deuce on Sun Feb 26 2012 03:16 pm
 > 
 >  > ODBC would be very cool.  But SQLite is not weak and a lot lower over
 >  > head than running a SQL server on the same server that your applications
 >  > are running on.
 > 
 > Sorry, I'm used to "real" DF servers.  SQLite is indeed weak, but that's
 > what it's trying for, so it's fine.
 > 
 >  > If Synch was to adopt a ODBC model it would make the most sense if
 >  > Synch's db stuff got stored via ODBC instead local binary packed files.
 > 
 > Not really.  Just because something *can* do a specific thing doesn't mean
 > it makes sense to.  Currently you can run Synchronet without setting up a
 > DB server.  Were Synchronet to reply on ODBC, that would no longer be the
 > case... and that would be almost the only benefit.
 > 
 >  > That would go a long ways into making Synch a enterprise class super
 >  > daemon.  I never got the feeling that that was the direction of Synch.
 >  > But I would applaud this direction as Synch naturally does social
 >  > networking which is a major demand of business websites now days.
 > 
 > There is a *lot* of things preventing Synchronet from being an enterprise
 > class super daemon.  Mostly it's just not designed for scalability.  The
 > data storage is just one tiny part of this issue.
 > 
 >  > But on the downside to ODBC is that there is a level of complication to
 >  > setting up ODBC drivers.  On Windows its fairly simple and can be a
 >  > step-by-step with screenshots.  ODBC on Linux can sometimes be hellish.
 > 
 > Which is a good reason for Synchronet not to rely on an ODBC driver.
 > 
 >  > My thinking was just a SQLite interface that extends the Javascript
 >  > engine as an alternative to regular file IO routines.  ODBC for just the
 >  > Javascript engine would be a bit overkill.  IMHO
 > 
 > I think writing custom SQL bindings for the JS engine and *only* supporting
 > SQLite would be underkill.  If we were going to pick a single DB to
 > support, I would likely choose PostgreSQL.
 > 
 > ---
 > http://DuckDuckGo.com/ a better search engine that respects your privacy.
 >  þ Synchronet þ My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)

---
 þ Synchronet þ Darkest Hour BBS - thedhbbs.com

.