Ruslan, Thanks for the quick reply. I am commenting your comments mixed in the quote below. I also have a shot to claim my "deadliest database schema" record
> Thanks for dropping in the thread. One thing that I think is stopping > some > > rev developers moving to valentina is that there's no valentina server > for > > revServer. The FREE Valentina server has adaptors only for ruby and php, > if > > we had RevServer support or at least a public available protocol to talk > to > > valentina server then we could implement support in RevServer itself. > > As revServer you mean this? > http://www.on-rev.com/home/ > > Why you talk about Valentina Free Server? > Why cannot be used Valentina Office Server? > Yes, I mean revServer in the On-Rev service. Any of the options could be cool may it be the Free or the Office server > > > > I think that David is doing some web development since most of the uses > of > > SimpleDB and RDS are related to web apps. Right now, we can't do web > > development with valentina and rev. Which is a pitty since valentina is > > deadly fast and provides the key-value stuff. > > Why you can't? > Because revServer can't access externals, so the ADK for Rev does not work with revServer. It needs a pure revTalk library that talks to Valentina Server to work. > > Any OS platform. You install VSERVER, make your REV app. > Host them together. What problems? > > Plus the same VSERVER can be touched by any other Valentina Client > from C++, C#, ObjC ... To PHP, RB, REV, Director, ShockWave, ... > As the above comment, with revServer we can't access any valentina for rev routines since it does not support externals. We would need a pure revTalk implementation. > > > > I too believe that no one here will reach the limit of a single server. I > am > > working right now on a system which has one database with 6 thousand > tables > > and millions and millions of records and it still a single mysql server. > And > > before you all curse me, I didn't design this stuff, I arrived at it > after > > THREE earlier programmers, I would never design anything with 6 thousand > > tables... > > That is cool :) > > 2 weeks ago I have to hear about man with 1000 tables.. > You have new record :) > > Now, check out this screen shot I just took: http://andregarzia.on-rev.com/shots/msdb.jpg This is ONE MASSIVE DATABASE with mind melting amount of information, tables with 55 million records... ARGH! I *hate* it. > > > What most users want here is just some kind of persistance and minimal > > querying. Many here don't even do joins or views or fancy SQL stuff. > > To keep e.g. Prefs? > > For this exists ini, xml files :) > RDBMS is really not required here. > Exactly, but I was thinking more like documents or structured data not unlike what one would put in an XML file but using Valentina would make searching much easier than using xml... -- http://www.andregarzia.com All We Do Is Code. _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution