Re: [sqlite] Mozilla + SQLite?
On 7/7/05, Vladimir Vukicevic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 08:40 -0700, Scott Baker wrote: Looks like Firefox is gearing up to store some of its information in SQLite? Does anyone know anything more about this? http://gemal.dk/blog/2005/07/06/mozilla_firefox_bookmarks_in_for_a_rewrite/ We'll be using sqlite, but not directly -- there is a layer currently called mozStorage which is basically a XPCOM/C++ wrapper around sqlite that I've written, along with convenience wrappers for working with mozStorage within JavaScript. (For example, statement parameters can be assigned via stmt.params.paramName = 'value' and simple statements can just be called as functions, as in stmt(param1, param2);) Good morning Vlad, I've finished a Firefox extension using mozIStorage. After looking at the documentation again I find it's got a data corruption issue waiting to happen. The docs say: How to corrupt your database * Open the database from an external program while it is open in Mozilla. Our caching breaks the normal file-locking in sqlite that allows this to be done safely. Which is exactly what I need to do. I'm capturing information about downloaded files and making it accessible to programs outside the browser. There's also the possibility of other programs writing to this database. Is there any way to turn off the caching and revert to regular sqlite locking on a per connection basis? Otherwise I'm going to have to write my own xpcom wrapper around sqlite and that really seems a waste since the code is already present. Thanks - To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: [sqlite] Mozilla + SQLite?
Thanks for sharing! I'm looking forward to the calendar program.
Re: [sqlite] Mozilla + SQLite?
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 08:40 -0700, Scott Baker wrote: Looks like Firefox is gearing up to store some of its information in SQLite? Does anyone know anything more about this? http://gemal.dk/blog/2005/07/06/mozilla_firefox_bookmarks_in_for_a_rewrite/ We'll be using sqlite, but not directly -- there is a layer currently called mozStorage which is basically a XPCOM/C++ wrapper around sqlite that I've written, along with convenience wrappers for working with mozStorage within JavaScript. (For example, statement parameters can be assigned via stmt.params.paramName = 'value' and simple statements can just be called as functions, as in stmt(param1, param2);) On 7/6/05, D. Richard Hipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The copy of Firefox I use (version 1.0 that comes with SuSE 9.2) stores all its configuration information and cache in a bunch of files under ~/.mozilla/firefox. If I try to launch two versions of firefox as the same user but on separate displays (for example one on the console and another on a remove X terminal or on an Xvnc server) the second one has problems because the two instances cannot share configuration files without risking collisions. And if I power-off without a clean shutdown, lock files persist which I have to clean up manually. Moving configuration information into an SQLite database will resolve these issues, I hope. Because SQLite transactions are isolated, multiple instances of Firefox will be able to share the same configuration. And because SQLite transactions are atomic, a power-off in the middle of a transaction will cause the transaction to roll back automatically. I *hope* that is what the SQLite integration with firefox will accomplish. But again, I don't really know. That is basically the plan; some design information is at http://wiki.mozilla.org/Mozilla2:Unified_Storage , though it needs to be updated somewhat. I don't think we'll be able to do a full conversion in time for the next release (after 1.1), but we'll certainly complete the process halfway through. There are some problems that we're going to have to resolve for profile sharing to fully work, mainly getting cross-application triggers to work correctly. We're thinking to just build a separate trigger mechanism within mozStorage, and have each app that makes changes distribute trigger notifications with an IPC system to other apps using the same database... but we're not that far yet :) Note that the next release of Sunbird (the calendar project) and the first release of Lightning (calendar integration in thunderbird) uses mozStorage/sqlite for storing all local calendar data. - Vlad
[sqlite] Mozilla + SQLite?
Looks like Firefox is gearing up to store some of its information in SQLite? Does anyone know anything more about this? http://gemal.dk/blog/2005/07/06/mozilla_firefox_bookmarks_in_for_a_rewrite/ -- Scott Baker Canby Telephone - Network Administrator - RHCE Ph: 503.266.8253
Re: [sqlite] Mozilla + SQLite?
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 08:40 -0700, Scott Baker wrote: Looks like Firefox is gearing up to store some of its information in SQLite? Does anyone know anything more about this? http://gemal.dk/blog/2005/07/06/mozilla_firefox_bookmarks_in_for_a_rewrite/ I've been hearing of this for some time but I know no details. The copy of Firefox I use (version 1.0 that comes with SuSE 9.2) stores all its configuration information and cache in a bunch of files under ~/.mozilla/firefox. If I try to launch two versions of firefox as the same user but on separate displays (for example one on the console and another on a remove X terminal or on an Xvnc server) the second one has problems because the two instances cannot share configuration files without risking collisions. And if I power-off without a clean shutdown, lock files persist which I have to clean up manually. Moving configuration information into an SQLite database will resolve these issues, I hope. Because SQLite transactions are isolated, multiple instances of Firefox will be able to share the same configuration. And because SQLite transactions are atomic, a power-off in the middle of a transaction will cause the transaction to roll back automatically. I *hope* that is what the SQLite integration with firefox will accomplish. But again, I don't really know. -- D. Richard Hipp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [sqlite] Mozilla + SQLite?
On 7/6/05, D. Richard Hipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 08:40 -0700, Scott Baker wrote: Looks like Firefox is gearing up to store some of its information in SQLite? Does anyone know anything more about this? http://gemal.dk/blog/2005/07/06/mozilla_firefox_bookmarks_in_for_a_rewrite/ I've been hearing of this for some time but I know no details. Woo Hoo! Their current bookmarks code is really slow.
Re: [sqlite] Mozilla + SQLite?
On 7/6/05, D. Richard Hipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 08:40 -0700, Scott Baker wrote: Looks like Firefox is gearing up to store some of its information in SQLite? Does anyone know anything more about this? http://gemal.dk/blog/2005/07/06/mozilla_firefox_bookmarks_in_for_a_rewrite/ I've been hearing of this for some time but I know no details. The copy of Firefox I use (version 1.0 that comes with SuSE 9.2) stores all its configuration information and cache in a bunch of files under ~/.mozilla/firefox. If I try to launch two versions of firefox as the same user but on separate displays (for example one on the console and another on a remove X terminal or on an Xvnc server) the second one has problems because the two instances cannot share configuration files without risking collisions. And if I power-off without a clean shutdown, lock files persist which I have to clean up manually. Moving configuration information into an SQLite database will resolve these issues, I hope. Because SQLite transactions are isolated, multiple instances of Firefox will be able to share the same configuration. And because SQLite transactions are atomic, a power-off in the middle of a transaction will cause the transaction to roll back automatically. I *hope* that is what the SQLite integration with firefox will accomplish. But again, I don't really know. -- D. Richard Hipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mozilla currently stores its information (bookmarks, history in firefox and the mail summary file in thunderbird) in a rather complicated database format called Mork - the less said of it the better. http://www.livejournal.com/users/jwz/312657.html Extracting information from it using anything other than mozilla itself is a nightmare. Apart from the reasons mentioned by Richard, I think this move will make searching and extracting information a lot easier. /Siddharth
