Hi guys (and gals),
On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Personally I worry about this. I think that while many people want to see
> > a SQL backend, there shouldn't be a dependency on installing SQL. The
> > Berkeley DB is fairly lightweight, installed on many systems already, and
> > fairly robust.
> >
>
> I agree with you. This is so problematic that I can't imagine a solution
> at present. A high factor of success of htdig is that it's simple to install
> and does not require anything but a C++ compiler. Depending on a SQL database
> will break that.
Not having to run a SQL database has other advantages in my particular
situation: it greatly simplifies administration (and reduces the politics
I have to play).
The way it is now with Berkeley DB, it's easy for me to give various
disparate units within my department complete control over their own
indexes-- I just let them know where htdig is located, and let them use
their own machines to create their own indexes and html interfaces, and
they store them in their own directories in our AFS cell. Then all I have
to do is symlink to their indexes in htdig's db root directory on the web
server.
It would not be as easy for me to justify running another production
database just to do this type of thing for these particular groups. I
have a lot more control over the contents of the CGI directory on our web
servers than the politics and administrative decisions re: putting another
SQL database into production.
take care,
--Will
------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the htdig3-dev mailing list, send a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You will receive a message to confirm this.
