Subj : Re: JSLibs
To : Badopcode
From : Deuce
Date : Thu Mar 01 2012 11:46 pm
Re: Re: JSLibs
By: Badopcode to Badopcode on Wed Feb 29 2012 04:44 am
> 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.
I think that's what my first reply basically said:
> I have some work on adding ODBC support to Synchronet. I think that
> marrying a specific engine would be a mistake - expecially one as
> purposefully weak as SQLite.
It was after that, when (I thought) serious discussion about DB support in JS
was starting that I brought out my opinions about specific APIs, methods, and
DB engines.
> The impression you left me is you would only want to add connectivity to a
> "real" SQL service that is enterprise class.
Well, what I meant is that I would prefer to not make the decision for the
script writer and that Synchronet should not use ODBC for storage of its own
data.
> To me, Synchronet is a "real" light weight but powerful social network
> server.
Sure, I was just warning you that it's not enterprise class and a handfull of
people working in their spare time won't get it there. Using it as a basis for
a site which massive growth is expected will likely mean re-writing everything
at some point in the future.
> 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.
And we already have binary packed files that work without anyone spending a
largsh number of hours working very hard to make Synchronet run exactly the
same.
But my objection ws to using ODBC to store the configuration data. SQLite is
less bad (though the above paragraph still applies).
> But the most important thing is... you just don't like it and that's fine.
I like it just fine. I've used it in a number of projects... I just don't like
it as the only option a JS scripter would have - and I would be less likely
both to use it and to pitch in making it work well.
But nobody says you need my help to get anything done.
> 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.
Ask anyone, I don't pull any punches when it comes to beating you over the head
with my opinion about technical subjects. Some people deal by never asking my
opinion, others deal by ignoring me - it's very few who attempt to understand
all my points and apply them to their contributions (Cyan, echicken, and
mcmlxxix - you all know which category you fall in to :-).
It seemed everyone knew this about me, so I'm surprised that you're 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.
Nah, I'm like this all the time. I'll hide my opinions at work, but nobody is
payng me to shut up about Synchronet development.
You should know that DM and I disagree on some fairly basic archetectural
decisions. My opinion shouldn't be the one to follow if you want to be
guaranteed to have your code imported and eventually a commit bit... mine is
just the one you should follow if you agree that it's the best way to do
something.
> 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.
You're free to program anything you like. If it's cool, we'll ask for you to
pollute CVS with it. If it's reasonably good quality and you're willing to
maintain it, we'll likely give you a commit bit. If you break stuff, we'll
take it away.
Basically, talk it over with DM before you break what already works (including
non-ANSI 7-bit ASCII only telnet support) and everything will be fine.
> 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.
Excellent!
> 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.
Having some DB access will be preferred by some to having none at all (though
mcmlxxix's JSON DB is pretty awesome). If you make it a compile-time option,
nobody will object to keeping it in CVS. You should likely hang out in
#Synchronet on irc.synchro.net though.
> 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.
No apology necessary. Just as I don't expect you to care what I think, I do
not yet have any reason to care what you think. :-) A little bit of code goes
a long way.
---
http://DuckDuckGo.com/ a better search engine that respects your privacy.
� Synchronet � My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)
