Re: [Evolution-hackers] picky libdb3 requirements

On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 02:16, C.J. Collier wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 16:59, Chris Toshok wrote:
> > A long time ago (when 3.1.17 was fairly new) we fixed on that version,
> > since there have been many problems with sleepycat upgrading its db
> > format in incompatible ways between minor revisions.  This won't affect
> > people that always use newer libdb's but several people lost their
> > addressbook after downgrading libdb.
> > 
> > The requirement will be upped before 1.6 to something more current,
> > unless I can get rid of the libdb requirement altogether (a much more
> > attractive solution in my mind).
> Hear hear.  I suggest libgda/libgnomedb.  The mailing list is quite
> active and the folks on it helpful.  The layer of abstraction might be
> nice for configuration geeks, too.  Not to mention allowing easy support
> of multiple database formats.
well, while I'm the maintainer of libgda, I don't think it's the
solution for the addressbook. It would be if we used, for instance, the
SQLite ( backend, but then, there is no
point in using libgda for wrapping access to SQLite. Of course, libgda
API is much friendlier than SQLite, but using the few things that would
be needed from SQLite would be enough.

The only real reason to use libgda would be to have the addressbook
being stored, optionally, in PostgreSQL/Oracle/MySQL... databases, which
I don't think is a very good idea. Maybe I'm wrong.

Apart from that, SQLite also has changed sometimes the format of the
database, so maybe it would be just as painful as using libdb.

Maybe using libmimedir could work?


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]