[REBOL] Re: dbms3.r 01
From: rgaither:triad:rr at: 15-Jan-2002 9:28
>With so much good thinking on this topic I'm a little intimidated to make my
>comment! But anyway ...
>Scanning the posts I didn't see anyone point out that an in-memory structure
>can look very different from an on-disk structure. Maybe it is too obvious.
>If someone said it - sorry for the repeat!
No, it is a good point to make. There is value in having them the
same in simplicity for the functions but there is also value in not being
limited by the serial nature of the persistent text file. It certainly should
be explored the same way the text file options are being explored.
>So you can optimise your in-memory structure to handle the expected access
>requests in an efficient manner. The out-of-memory (persistent) structure
>could be more attuned to other requirements or perhaps there could be
>multiple formats. The trick will be in binding the two together.
>I refer to it as an out-of-memory structure rather than an on-disk structure
>because you may want to bind it not just with a disk file but perhaps with
>some custom xml parser, or mime-email or port, or. whatever.
Both are good points!
>Gabriele, if you achieve everything I've seen on the list it will be the
>best little database ever! :)
Hah, hopefully Gabriele will pick a couple key options and go about
creating something instead of letting us design and design and design...
Sometimes it is good to have deadlines! :-)
Oak Ridge, NC - USA