On May 13, 2008, at 2:06 PM, James Mansion wrote:
Kurt J. Lidl wrote:
This catapults back into the arena of "stuff that isn't in the
base system". Not to mention I'm not sure that the Oracle BDB
license would allow bundling in the OS as a binary. I doubt it,
but that's a different bikeshed to paint :-)
Is the LGPL of QDBM and TokyoCabinet also a problem? Could even try
grovelling
with Mikio? (Partially joking there. I assume he chose LGPL because
he wants
it that way, but people have been known to change licenses for a
base system - like
this http://blogs.sun.com/aalok/entry/lzma_on_opensolaris)
And is the objection to SQL such the sqlite is really out of the
running?
Anyway, in this case, would writing an RPC server to own the data
kill the performance?
It should be easier to write something that can save the database
atomically and index
it in-core. It could be started on demand and shut down after a
short inactivity, a bit
like tibco's rvd.
There are known problems with certain keys corrupting the DB 1.8x
series code. In fact, the "release" of the 1.86 was an attempt
to solve this problem when the KerberosV people at MIT found
a repeatable key insert sequence that would corrupt things.
(Or at least that's what I remember, it was a long time ago, and
I might have the details wrong.)
Have to say its a little concerning that such 'mature' code is
actually problematic.
Particularly since I'm not aware of a non-LGPL alternative.
Do you have anything by way of a pointer? Google didn't help me here.
James
Most of the complaints about other DBs is licensing related, but
SQLite's complaint was also the fact that the past stability record
was a bit rocky.
HTH,
-Garrett
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
