Re: [Rhythmbox-devel] rythmdb question?

[Jan Schmidt <thaytan noraisin net>]

On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 18:43 -0500, Thomas Sibley wrote:
> Brian Fahrlander wrote:
> >    Yeah, and in most other cases I'd agree, but there's just so _darned_
> > much already situated around MySQL; so many programs, APIs and things.
> > Look at PHP and python bindings and such.  I don't dislike SQLite, it's
> > clever, and efficient but with so many things on (at least) Fedora
> > already using it, it seems a shame to go re-invent the wheel.  It would
> > bring up another level of incompatibility that just doesn't have to be.
> 
> I was under the impression that PHP embedded a copy of SQLite in it's 
> interpreter that you could use natively.  I'm positive Python has SQLite 
> bindings.  I know Perl does.  I don't see how MySQL has any more support 
> other than apps locked into it.  How is SQLite reinventing the wheel?
> 
> In any case, a move to a SQL database should be a move to any SQL 
> database; RB (or any app), shouldn't tie you down to the developer's 
> choice of DB engines.

Maybe so, but the day I have to do anything more than apt-get install
rhythmbox to set it up, is the day I'll probably stop using it - and I'm
prepared to go further than most. Any database backend default that
can't be automatically set up by the packaging system is one that will
provide a significant barrier-to-entry for RB uptake.

This is not to say that RB shouldn't have switchable backends, but the
default should never be something like mySQL that requires
user-intervention to set up databases and db login permissions.

J.
-- 
Jan Schmidt <thaytan noraisin net>