On 16-12-10 16:11, Mike McGrady wrote:
The experience in the industry is that writing directly to a database
is too slow and reaches either a cost or a performance ceiling . The
prime candidates for a tuple-space application in the real world is
lost, I think, if you write to a database and not to at least a front
end cache. CISCO, Oracle, etc are all going, going, gone in this
direction. It's not an option in our case.
Apart from that, it would be very interesting to see how a COTS DB
backed javaspace whould behave in practice. And it could be the
first step into producing alternative persistence mechanisms. In
the early stage it would be comfortable to know we don't have to
prove the correctness of a cots-db. In a later stage we can always
look at lifting the transaction based blockstorage layer from derby
or another java based db for instance.
As you have quoted an email i've send, i will assume that the quoting
order got somehow confused.
Mike, i hope that you are not confusing the process vs the outcome.
Driving down the issue that you don't like databases, should not
influence a committers freedom to dabble with the idea.
A relational database for you is out of the question, noted. Shall we
move on?
Gr. Sim
--
QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl
Quality Consultancy Group b.v., Leiderdorp, Kvk Den Haag: 28088397
