Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > I don't know what has been discussed so I'll just blurt out my idea. > Based on the description of the Journal in the HIG, it seemed like GIT > would be a close fit for the database requirements.
That was the first thing I thought about. No dice; a generic VCS store won't cut it for us. git relies on an immutable history and is (almost) exclusively content-addressable, neither of which is acceptable for us. I've been spending half my time on this for almost two months, and it's turned out to be a very difficult problem, with one full implementation already thrown away. What we want is most akin to an RDF store, but those are nowhere near performant enough for us to use (certainly not the free and open ones, anyway). Much of the final requirements were only hashed out in meetings over the last 2 weeks, and I don't have this written up anywhere except in my design notebook (the paper kind). I'm racing now to release a working implementation this week from which we could iterate further, and will try to release it with full docs and a spec that incorporates the latest thinking. -- Ivan Krstić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GPG: 0x147C722D _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
