On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 04:44:57PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 12:37:58AM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > It may make sense to implement several different types of store. > > a) Native filesystem, with one file per key, and the filename derived > > from the keyname (may need to escape some chars). Partially implemented > > already, needs more implementation as well as debugging > > b) Native filesystem, with a mapping from filename to keyname, and a > > pool of truncated files (hack to support broken windoze JVMs). Would be > > a descendant of the class implementing a). > > c) Everything in a single file, the current datastore that we all know > > and hate. Implemented fully but has the DSB. > > > > What are the relative urgencies of these options? Should I tackle a) > > and b) before debugging c) ? If a) and b) are implemented, is c) even > > necessary? > > I don't think it makes sense to implement 2 or 3 different types of > datastore - that would be a wasteful duplication of effort, we only need > one - but obviously it must be one that works. > > To be honest, I don't know enough about how the current datastore is > implemented to make a judgement call as to whether it would be easier to > start from scratch than to debug it, but we need to settle on one course > of action and focus on that, rather than diluting our efforts over > several redundant paths. Right. That's approximately my thinking - implement a), extend it to be b), so that we can run on problematic Windoze JVMs, and dump c). > > Ian. > > -- > Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Founder & Coordinator, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ > Chief Technology Officer, Uprizer Inc. http://www.uprizer.com/ > Personal Homepage http://locut.us/
-- Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet/Coldstore open source hacker. Looking for $coding (I'm cheap)
msg03963/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
