[Date Prev][Date Next]
At 11:41 AM 12/2/99 -0600, Randy Kunkee wrote:
>> [stuff deleted]
>> I would rather see our energies turned to making back-bdb2
>> a reality. I believe it impertive that we development a
>> robust, reliable backend. LDBM doesn't provide a transaction
>> model to the server and hence back-ldbm will never be robust
>> nor reliable.
>Kurt, I don't know what you have in mind, but my recent experiences
>with back-bdb2 (aside from getting it to work) are the following:
I view the current back-bdb2 code as just a prototype effort
and may be tossed. Lately I've come to the conclusion that
we may need to design and implement (almost from scratch) a
back-sleepy to truely take advantage of transaction, caching,
and index capabilities of the database.
It's a major project that needs getting done. It will likely
take a fair number of man months to accomplish. Hopefully we
can find individuals willing to do this work (or fund someone
else to do it).
Kurt D. Zeilenga <email@example.com>
Net Boolean Incorporated <http://www.boolean.net/>