[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: back-bdb2

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		<kurt@boolean.net>
Net Boolean Incorporated	<http://www.boolean.net/>