On Sun, Apr 25, 1999 at 11:33:31PM -0600, Brian Grossman wrote:
> The other is more complex and would scale better, and should have
> reasonable performance for searches on other fields than the key. It's
> essentially an implementation of associative arrays using four tables. It
> would also rely on using mysql's regex functions instead of perl's.
Can I insert my penny's worth here ?
If you, or anyone for that matters, implements a DB backend, can
you *please* please please try to start with a standards based
implementation so that those who do not, cannot or will not run a
specific DB package. By all means then provide optimisations that
will be backend specific.
This means "no regexps" for a start :(
Most of the required function should be available in standard SQL, using
the DBI interface. Admittedly some things may be slow and require work
on the mj2 side, but it would make those of use with other DB's more
And then what about LDAP ? (Note: I know very little personally about LDAP,
with no direct experience except as an occasional public directory user).
People keep mentioning it though. It can be thought of as a DB backend.
> Using berkeley db is essentially the same as idea one. It should be
> sufficient in all but the most demanding applications.
So we have; DB(M), SQL, LDAP, ... hmm. This could be complex enough to
require one more level of abstraction.
Knowledge Matters Ltd
http://www.knowledge.com /http://www.wonderland.org/ http://www.literature.org/