Re: [GNUnet-developers] Replacing lookup

[Niklas Höglund]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:43:12AM -0500, Krista Bennett wrote:
> Christian Grothoff hath spoken thusly on Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:28:26AM 
> -0500:
> > Anyway, I should probably let the people doing the Windows port decide what 
> > is 
> > the best DB for them. But moving the API boundary / doing the proposed 
> > interface change should not be a problem -- if nothing else, the current 
> > code 
> > could still be adapted to be used by users that can't install MySQL.

I think the old code (at least the directory backend) should be kept.  I
agree that it's nice with a scalable solution, but I also think mysql
may cause installation problems.  I'm using Debian GNU/Linux and the few
times I've installed stuff that requires a database backend I've had to
manually create a database and setup an account for the application.
I want to be able to just "apt-get install gnunet" to get gnunet.  It
may very well be possible to automate this, but I'd like to be sure.

Also, MySQL uses RAM all the time the system is running and increases
bootup time.  If you're also running Postgres this issue is doubled.

However, there are quite a lot of advantages too, and I have to agree
with Krista here:

> If the interface is made standard for *any* database we might use, it'd be 
> a whole lot easier when we have to see what exactly *would* work best for 
> Windows (or anything else for that matter), whether that's MySQL or 
> BobsGreatDatabaseAndPizzaFactory. I think Igor's suggested refactoring 
> sounds like a good idea in any event.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Making it possible for people who want any sort of performance to use a
> better scheme, on the other hand, doesn't seem to me to be a bad thing at
> all.

-- 
                                                Niklas

pgpGEYev2UBzR.pgp
Description: PGP signature