Am Donnerstag, den 22.01.2009, 21:27 +0100 schrieb Peter Bex: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 03:01:30PM -0500, Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote: > > So, if you have to simulate features of the storage engine to get > > compatibility, all you have to do is tell users that there are some > > limitations > > to it. Give them the information to choose for themselves. But, on the > > other hand, if they end up growing significantly, and decide to switch > > storage engines from ASCII files to Postgres, why should they have to do > > any more than recompile/restart with a different connection parameter?
How about something like implementing callbacks from the sqlite vfs http://www.sqlite.org/c3ref/vfs.html into chickens, which shall dispatch to the actual storage engine. This is a C-chicken-C call at least, OK. But any block store will do, even a remote file system. No. ball-chicken does not yet have that. But it has a file system alike interface in Scheme, driven from a WebDAV server. I can't believe is hard to close the gap. BTW: if you find this particular idea appealing, please contact me in private mail. It might be possible to shell out some money for just this one. But that needs planning. /Jörg _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
