Re: [Tracker] Database access abstraction

[Jürg Billeter <j bitron ch>]

On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 09:05 -0500, Jamie McCracken wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-11-01 at 01:11 +0000, Martyn Russell wrote:
>
> > These are just my thoughts after running over the API. I know your work
> > might consist mainly of what we already had, but this could be the
> > perfect opportunity to rename those functions to fit better to what they
> > actually do.
> >
> > Great start JÃrg! Thanks for doing this.
>
> have to agree - it looks very promising with better renaming

Thanks, I'll start applying changes to an SVN branch to prepare a merge,
then.

> if we fully implemented this could we remove libtracker-db? (I would
> assume it would be better combined with your stuff here)

While the database interface abstraction probably gets less important as
we essentially abstract on a higher level, we still need code that keeps
track of the different database files and how they are combined. I don't
mind much whether we integrate libtracker-db into libtracker-data or
keep them separate. Maybe we should postpone the decision until we see
how exactly the decomposed table support will look like.

JÃrg