Dan Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Solution A: > If you remember from before, I implemented a full libtool setup > and it dynamically loaded libraries. This is one way to go, but may > not make sense in the long run. It's our present course, and a very good one. The libtool setup is great work.
> Solution B: > I have been following libdbi very closely. libdbi is a database > abstraction layer in C. Its not bulky like odbc, and its quite like the > perl DBI. Basically a move to a single driver libdbi would make sense > because you wouldn't have to rebuild to switch drivers. [Goes to check out libdbi] ... libdbi looks very cool. We've already basically written our own middle layer, so it would be pretty straightforward to write a libdbi driver. I'm not sure if we would want to retarget for libdbi and remove our own mid layer, though... Because libdbi is LGPL and fairly small, it would be entirely reasonable to simply put a version libdbi into the DBMail tree. That way, we don't have to bother people with dependencies unless they already have a libdbi and modules installation that we can hook into. > I have asked a friend of mine (DBA), to review the sql layout for > dbmail. I can only say he will probably rewrite the whole sql schema > for performance. Maybe a new database layout for 2.1. Sounds good, it will be interesting to see what he suggests. Aaron --
