On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 09:21:55 AM +0100, Joerg Barfurth
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
In other words, why is the particular SQLite behavior you mention
above a problem for embedding it in OO.o?
Because SQLite currently can write only to an ordinary file and not
to an abstract stream provided
Hi,
Jonathon Blake wrote:
with 2.0 beta almost out of the door,
Is this the reason the 2.0 beta was not released in November, as the
_original_, not updated schedule proposed? The updated schedule
slipped the date to December, then January, and now early summer.
IIRC the reason to slip the beta
Hi,
I still don't see any _technical_merits that favor HSQLDB over
SQLite. More to the point, there are technical reasons to use
SQLite.
AFAIK one of the main problems was that database documents should be XML
based documents like the ones of writer, calc, ... This means the
database needs to
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 21:16:45 PM +0100, Verena Ruff
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hi,
I still don't see any _technical_merits that favor HSQLDB over
SQLite. More to the point, there are technical reasons to use
SQLite.
AFAIK one of the main problems was that database documents should be XML
M. Fioretti schrieb:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 21:16:45 PM +0100, Verena Ruff
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hi,
I still don't see any _technical_merits that favor HSQLDB over
SQLite. More to the point, there are technical reasons to use
SQLite.
AFAIK one of the main problems was that
On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 10:04 +0200, Nicu Buculei wrote:
maybe is funding was asked in the first place, the community would have
paid (or just paid more) for a certain solution (for example for the one
considered to provide more freedom).
It is not clear if including SQLite is less effort
Ralph Aichinger wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 10:04 +0200, Nicu Buculei wrote:
maybe is funding was asked in the first place, the community would have
paid (or just paid more) for a certain solution (for example for the one
considered to provide more freedom).
It is not clear if including SQLite
Buculei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Nicu Buculei [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 11:28:17 +0200
To: discuss@openoffice.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: What about SQLite, was: Funding for remaining
HSQLDB work
Ralph Aichinger wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 10:04 +0200, Nicu Buculei
NIcu wrote:
with 2.0 beta almost out of the door,
Is this the reason the 2.0 beta was not released in November, as the
_original_, not updated schedule proposed? The updated schedule
slipped the date to December, then January, and now early summer.
HSQLDB is the only remaining viable solution,
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 02:32:55 AM +, CPH
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Please donate to HSQLDB to continue the improvements in database
functionality for OpenOffice.org 2.0
Sorry, but this seems the right moment to sing against the choir, that
is to remember why funding of SQLite might be a
with the recommendation of the
project lead. He is their to provide this leaderhip so let's support him.
--- M. Fioretti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: M. Fioretti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 05:35:30 +0100
To: users@openoffice.org, discuss@openoffice.org
Subject: [discuss] Re: What about SQLite
Ian wrote:
Unless we are saying SQLite will take less resource to get to the
same or further along the develoment line than
a) Where is HSQLDB on the development line?
A driver for SQLite, and OOo was available early 2004, or late 2003.
I don't know how well it works, though.
xan
jonathon
--
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 21:33:56 PM -0800, Jonathon Blake
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Ian wrote:
Unless we are saying SQLite will take less resource to get to the
same or further along the develoment line than
a) Where is HSQLDB on the development line?
A driver for SQLite, and OOo was
13 matches
Mail list logo
