Re: [Rhythmbox-devel] Re: Syncing the RhythmDB on every update

On Mon, 2004-02-16 at 10:31, Andreas Bombe wrote:

> Which is just a strong hint that using an XML backend (or any other
> non-random access backend) is wholly inadequate, not that syncing the
> library instantly is not the very right thing to do.

They're related, sure.  But we were talking about the current backend.

> What would speak against a gdbm backend, apart from the additional
> library dependency?

Nothing, it's definitely possible.  Experiments with how gdbm performs
would be a good idea.

If we're going to do major work on the backend though, I'd like to take
a closer look at sqlite.

> This solution would be rather XML (or generally non-random access
> backend) specific.  Probably we should stop using XML as the working
> database backend and demote it to an export database that is dumped on
> shutdown only.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying - we would write to *both*
a gdbm file and XML?  That seems a little crack.  If we're going to
switch to a new backend, we should just switch.

> That way we'd have an up-to-date template to initialize newly
> implemented backends.  If we have gdbm and someone implements SQL, the
> SQL Rhythmbox wouldn't have to have gdbm compiled in to initialize the
> SQL database, for example.  No hassles with data conversions on upgrades
> and downgrades that way.

Supporting upgrades from XML or gdm to sqlite shouldn't be hard. 
Downgrades are problematic, and I don't see a big need to support that.

This is a digitally signed message part

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