> At this point I can think of two possibilities, either or both of which > would solve this problem: > > 1) Store the binary resources in the b-tree. This requires (based on my > current understanding) one additional byte for each resource, which > isn't much overhead when you consider that a disk access is fairly > probable on any given database request. > > 2) Change the XML:DB definition so that get() may be called with a > Resource object. > > Any thoughts? > It seems to me like the best solution would be for both to be done. I would imagine you could do the first method to get binary resource support into the tree and then use that as a lobbying point to get XML:DB updated.
-Matt
