On 1/12/07, Ken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If it is a replacement for fopen, then why does it perform locking at all? Since sqlite has implemented threading and multiple connections, then the next logical step in its evoloution is to enable advanced locking techniques for even greater degrees of improved concurrency.
I think the OP describing it as a replacement for fopen is a bit of an exaggeration, but your comment underlines the problem with much of the world's software: unnecessary evolution. SQLite is as popular as it is because it's a lightweight, structured storage mechanism with rich access capabilities. I don't think that all software has to evolve, and I don't think SQLite has to aspire to any of it's larger, more powerful brethren. If SQLite evolves too much, it becomes necessarily complex and then somebody has to write the new lightweight storage mechanism. That said... if features can be added without losing the core values, then I'm all for it. :-)
