Daniel Oceloen wrote: > Well the facts are it was added without consultation
Mostly because nobody cares for the Transaction project. Actually when I checked it in I did consult the list and explained the use, but nobody reacted. > is that its might be supported but not for all databases and nobody knows > its there. We're very busy ammending that. :) > Infact we could say this about the whole Store system. It is not a system but a Storage interface, an alternate interface for JDBC2Node interface, which is too dependent on certain behaviors and allows other javacode to carete their own sql statements. The storage classes are backwards compatible in design (until we can get rid of the old interface, which will probably take a while). > The whole database abstraction is now very unclear and seems to > be based on 2 frameworks personally i have no clue how we got to this state > but we do need to clear this up. I definetely hope the Query project will use the storage classes - at least take their design into account. I think the old classes are really bad - ind esigna nd the way they 'inherit' - if that's the word - form the other classes. I feel quiet confident that it would not be too hard to create (for instance) an Informix Storage class. But I can't run Informix so I cannot be sure. > Upto know it was _not_ normal for mmbase to > add indexes because people told me it depends alot on the database used and > is a db admins job, im not against adding it btw. You can configutre it now and it works, which beats having configuration that DOESNT work. -- Pierre van Rooden Mediapark, C 107 tel. +31 (0)35 6772815 "All your MMBase are belong to us"
