* In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* On the subject of "Re: bbdb - future diretions"
* Sent on 31 Oct 2000 19:50:07 +
* Honorable Nix [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OBARRAY_SIZE is 16411 in XEmacs, which is more than large enough; but
I hear that it is only 1511 in GNU Emacs,
Yikes. I should proofread more:
On October 31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
As previously pointed out, the current database structure is parsed
as a lisp structure, not unlike reading a binary blob off a disk and
casting it to a file.
That would be "casting it to a structure".
export/import
Ernst Taumberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a bbdb file with more than 2000 entries and I don't see any slow down
in the use of bbdb (I added the bulk of it in one go -- imported company
phonebook).
You won't see it for some time; the bbdb-hashtable is an obarray, so
lookup of entries
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there anyone who wants to use/share BBDB cooperatively with other
people?
/me raises hand
For cooperativeness, LDAP might be our friend. But then, there's
EUDC...
kai
--
I like BOTH kinds of music.
Today, Doug Alcorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What would keep "us" (read "the people who develop bbdb") from
implementing a more orthogonal schema in a flat file? I agree with
the other two posts about not using either RDBM or something like
Berkley db files. It is just too much hastle to
"RW" == Ronan Waide [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RW On October 28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Any thoughts? If this isn't appropriate discussion here, let me know.
RW My stand on this would be no, no, no. Really. No. BBDB works quite
RW nicely, with vast quantities of entries,
Andreas Fuchs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2000-10-28, Tom Perrine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If someone were to build such a PIB API, it seems that the hardest
part would be to support the current "invent a new field on the fly"
features.
Nah, not at all. You could have a table that
Today, Benjamin Rutt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Modifying db schema is not trivial or elegant with any RDBMS that I've
ever heard of. Besides, adding a new field on the fly is easy with
the current bbdb implementation. Doing it with a RDBMS would be quite
difficult, and many RDBMS
On October 28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Any thoughts? If this isn't appropriate discussion here, let me know.
My stand on this would be no, no, no. Really. No. BBDB works quite
nicely, with vast quantities of entries, using a flat file. The file
is read using native emacsisms (there's some
