On Sat, 2014-04-19 at 17:20 -0500, Blake McBride wrote: > Very cool! I was going to implement a keyed file system according to > the idea present in my April 1 message. Sounds like you are 80% > there. I'll leave it up to you (since you are so close), or pick it > up when you need a break. Let me know if I can help. Thanks!! >
As you can see, there's not much work involved in building a component-file system on top of a SQL substrate. I view this particular implementation as a set of low-level primitives that can be used either on their own or as building blocks upon which to build other component-file services. For example, you may want to use shared variables to coordinate access to a single component file from multiple APL processes. Or maybe you'd like to add transaction support. These are things that, despite their utility to some applications, don't necessarily belong in the core of the implementation. For now, I think the only things I still want to do are: 1. Add a version table to the component file. 2. Add a version column to the component table, to be used for forward migration in case something in the implementation needs to change. 3. Look into emitting better error messages. 4. Start a functional and performance test suite.
