Re: review of the Storage interface

[Dietmar Maurer <dietmar maurer-it com>]

Michael Meeks wrote:

> Hi Dietmar,
>         I am extremely concerned that your suggestions are extensive and I
> do not understand why many of them are neccessary. What application do you
> have in mind for eg. locking, content types on storages etc. etc. Why are
> these neccessary to your mind ? MS manage to cope without this
> functionality and the interface is currently nice and thin. It would be
> good if you could try and rationalize each one on the list carefuly before
> writing any code.

Just to summarize my thoughts:

If we want a simple interface we should restrict ourselves to a
sequential storage model (no seeks possible). This
implies no transaction, no locking, ...

The advantage is that we can save to sequential formats like XML, zip, tar
, mime multipart ...

The disadvantage is that each component must support that interface,
and we have larger memory requirements, since we have to keep
everything in memory.

Supporting transactions, locking, random access is not necessarily
needed.

I really hope someone understands what I mean - and analyse
the critical points.

    Dietmar