Mike, > I suspect that there will have to be some discussion of some particular > choices I made--for instance, if they're tieing in R/O mode, I will > just return 0 if _any_ tables are missing, stuff like that. So it's > maybe stricter in some ways.
tieing? When already choosing BerkeleyDB for its features, my preferred choice would be to use explicit bdb function calls, which give you full access to options and first-hand error status on failures. Hiding bdb API under a perl 'tie' limits your choices and muddies failure reasons. > Is there any need for me to bother with SVN, at least initially? > It seems to me that working against 3.2.5 should be adequate, > but I don't pretend to know for certain. 3.2.5 should be alright for the purpose, although generally new development would be least painful when starting from current code. As it stands presently, the CVS head is stable and is still compatible with 3.2.5, so one can switch back and forth if necessary. One of the shifts in 3.3 is tighter error handling and informative reporting/logging of all unexpected/unhandled error conditions, please keep it in mind. Mark
