Subj : Re: JSLibs
To : Badopcode
From : Badopcode
Date : Wed Feb 29 2012 04:44 am
Re-reading this and maybe you didn't mean it as a slam.
But seriously you could have just said you don't like SQLite and its not
something your interested in pursuing. Maybe spared some hard feelings.
The impression you left me is you would only want to add connectivity to a
"real" SQL service that is enterprise class. But won't because Synchronet
isn't enterprise class and by your own definitions not a "real" server. To
me, Synchronet is a "real" light weight but powerful social network server.
SQLite is no different than doing everything by hand with binary packed files
except your not doing the dirty foot work of writing query code.
But the most important thing is... you just don't like it and that's fine.
It's your time on this project and I can totally appreciate the fact that you
don't want to mess with stuff that you don't like with your time.
I say nothing but praises about you, DM and all the other great people putting
their precious time and talents into Synchronet. You guys rock. Truly.
That's why I was so shocked.
I don't know, maybe you guys get bombarded with whines and people that won't
drop crap. I am a developer as well and have been through that myself. So I
know how it goes. All you need is one bad day and yet one more douchebag
whining for you to do something you could care less about and its postal time.
I'm sorry and apologize if I was that douchebag that touched you off. In no
way was I trying to demand and was totally with the utmost respect and
humbleness. But I could see how maybe my messages could get interpreted as me
trying to drive marching orders.
At any rate... I can perfectly add the SQLite3 extension myself and won't
bother you guys with it. I have fully done my homework on Synch JS and
SQLite3 and know exactly how to approach the matter. The only downside is
that I am not interested in trying to maintain a forked set of build files
parallel to your guys CVS head or chase bugs outside of what I run into
personally. So I won't release my code into the wild as it will mean having to
answer whining and crying myself. That's what I was avoiding and can't blame
you for not wanting to deal with that over something your don't even like.
Again I apologize if I came off sounding like I was demanding slave labor from
you guys. That is not what I was trying to convey at all.
> Wow! Not the type of response I expected. Didn't mean to piss you off. I
> mean I have no problem with a debate. Or even a project leader telling me
> no because I say no... but being blasted with a cynical circular logic
> explanation like I'm a overly excited child... not cool.
> Well this definitely curbs my enthusiasm.
>
>
> > Re: Re: JSLibs
> > By: Badopcode to Deuce on Sun Feb 26 2012 03:16 pm
> >
> > > ODBC would be very cool. But SQLite is not weak and a lot lower over
> > > head than running a SQL server on the same server that your
> > > applications are running on.
> >
> > Sorry, I'm used to "real" DF servers. SQLite is indeed weak, but that's
> > what it's trying for, so it's fine.
> >
> > > If Synch was to adopt a ODBC model it would make the most sense if
> > > Synch's db stuff got stored via ODBC instead local binary packed
> > > files.
> >
> > Not really. Just because something *can* do a specific thing doesn't
> > mean it makes sense to. Currently you can run Synchronet without
> > setting up a DB server. Were Synchronet to reply on ODBC, that would no
> > longer be the case... and that would be almost the only benefit.
> >
> > > That would go a long ways into making Synch a enterprise class super
> > > daemon. I never got the feeling that that was the direction of
> > > Synch. But I would applaud this direction as Synch naturally does
> > > social networking which is a major demand of business websites now
> > > days.
> >
> > There is a *lot* of things preventing Synchronet from being an
> > enterprise class super daemon. Mostly it's just not designed for
> > scalability. The data storage is just one tiny part of this issue.
> >
> > > But on the downside to ODBC is that there is a level of complication
> > > to setting up ODBC drivers. On Windows its fairly simple and can be
> > > a step-by-step with screenshots. ODBC on Linux can sometimes be
> > > hellish.
> >
> > Which is a good reason for Synchronet not to rely on an ODBC driver.
> >
> > > My thinking was just a SQLite interface that extends the Javascript
> > > engine as an alternative to regular file IO routines. ODBC for just
> > > the Javascript engine would be a bit overkill. IMHO
> >
> > I think writing custom SQL bindings for the JS engine and *only*
> > supporting SQLite would be underkill. If we were going to pick a single
> > DB to support, I would likely choose PostgreSQL.
> >
> > ---
> >
http://DuckDuckGo.com/ a better search engine that respects your
> > privacy.
> > � Synchronet � My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)
---
� Synchronet � Darkest Hour BBS - thedhbbs.com
