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

[Andreas Bombe <bombe informatik tu-muenchen de>]

On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 07:56:28PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> 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.

I'd stop talking about the current backend if it's inherently unfixable.
We need a random access 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.

gdbm, sqlite, same difference.  SQLite seems quite nifty.  I'd start to
write a backend using SQLite if nobody else really wants to.


> 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.

Write to XML only on shutdown, to keep an up to date export file
available.  It would be helpful if we don't just switch but allow for
multiple backends, maybe even as plugins (backends like something that
isn't specific to Rhythmbox and is unsuitable as a standard rb backend).

Granted, this is probably overengineering.  IMHO we should still keep
the XML backend around to export/import the rhythmdb.  Instead of
dumping on every shutdown, I guess it would be enough to provide a
command line option for exporting the db.

-- 
Andreas Bombe <bombe@informatik.tu-muenchen.de>    GPG key 0x04880A44