Re: Mutating existing persistent data

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

<tomas@tuxteam.de> writes:

> I concur. The interface looks good; why it /has/ to be sqlite3, of all
> things... I'd rather avoid such an overspecified dependency. Why not
> PostgreSQL, then, or, say, DB2? (no, I'm not serious on that, just to
> illustrate my issue).

I fail to see how that illustrates anything.

sqlite3 is a C library with excellent performance, robustness and
portability.  There isn't much to recommend other key/value stores over
sqlite3.

That you can also do SQL with it is pretty irrelevant for this use case.

That you can do SQL with it, in addition, is also nice, because that's
useful for other things.

So using sqlite3 gives us everything you'd get with *dbm, and you get
other nice stuff in addition.

I haven't really seen anything new here in this discussion for a while,
and I'm now just re-iterating what I've already said numerous times, so
I won't do that any further.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no