Hi Davy, Davy Chan wrote:
> Hi Fred, > > Now that we have UUIDs for each SMS passing through the bearerbox, > would it be possible to modify your code to use standard dbm instead > of gdbm. That way, it could be compiled easily on most standard > platforms. For those wanting better performance, they can compile > using gdbm in dbm compatibility mode. If you don't have the time, > then I would like to take over your code, modify it, and submit it > for voting. > > And, for all the Kannel coders out there, I would like to have > a vote on phasing in a DBM-based DLR storage facility and phasing > out the internal memory-based DLR storage. The reason for including > the DBM-based DLR storage would be that most UNIX or UNIX-like > environments support DBM (really NDBM now) as a standard package. > It would be the proper alternative to SQL-based DLR storage (instead > of the in bearerbox's memory-only DLR storage). I'm really -1 for dropping internal dlr storage. bdb or gdbm may be overkill for small setups and forces external dependency (with is the goal why we support mysql/pgsql/oracle). user should decide which one to use w/o forcing them to install yet another database just to be able to use dlr's. > > (My real reason to dump the internal DLR storage is that my statusbox > is getting into trouble trying to gleam info from the bearerbox's > internal memory DLR storage. But, of course, phasing out a DLR > storage that disappears with bearerbox's termination is a much better > reason). > > See ya... > > d.c. -- Thanks, Alex
