|
From: | Juergen Sauermann |
Subject: | Re: [Bug-apl] ISO Component File API preview |
Date: | Sun, 13 Jul 2014 20:06:39 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130330 Thunderbird/17.0.5 |
Hi,
sorry for answering that late, but I was busy with a major restructuring of GNU APL (APserver/shared variables). That created a bit of an headache but is looking fine now. Blake has asked for my opinion earlier. I am not really a database specialist though. The last database I worked with was Clipper (a dbase 3 compiler) in the 1990s. My opinion is that: 1. The solution should be what the ISO standard asks for, and 2. The final decision how to achieve that should be made by the person who is providing the code (and that is not me in this case). The details like how many databases or files should be discussed between users of the component file systems and the designer(s) of it, but then decided by the latter. The old APL68000 had one big fat file, but at that time a second would have killed the harddisk and these days disk space not not an issue anymore. My thinking related to SQL was that it should be fairly easy to use (given Elias' SQL interface) and not so much that SQL is performance-wise the best solution. Like defining one 2-column table with numbers as index and APL values as second column. That would be 1 database with 1 table in 1 file. And maybe more files for different component file systems. But again, I am not a specialist (and currently not a user either). If the solution uses database specific functions then I would try to not use those, unless this creates a lot of extra work. Regarding licences, I am not a specialist either, but at least in the past LGPL was favoured over GPL for libraries because it made libraries more useful. Not sure what the situation in GPLv3 is, but I guess this has not changed. /// Jürgen On 07/10/2014 04:25 AM, Elias Mårtenson wrote:
|
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |