Hi all, certainly not claiming the last word here, but what Jim is proposing looks a lot like what lucidDB is doing:
http://www.luciddb.org/arch.html (gosh, what a happy MySQL plugin writer I'd be if the code wouldn't break each build....) On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Jim Starkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jay Pipes wrote: >> >> Jim Starkey wrote: >> >>> >>> Everything else is added value and we're just arguing about where to draw >>> the line. >>> >> >> Yep. This is precisely what everyone is debating. I'm drawing the line >> very conservatively -- i.e. in the core kernel, I'd like as little as >> possible; only stuff that *everyone* uses or is 100% critical for >> performance. Everything else, make it a plugin and see how many people >> actually use it... >> >> BTW, we're in 100% agreement on the cleanliness/usability of the APIs. >> >> >> > > One of the things I really like about the software racket is that people can > agree 100% on basic principles and still come to radically different > conclusions -- and all without anyone being wrong. > > That said, let me compare the drizzle version of conservative with the > Nimbus/Netfrastructure version. We both agree that extensibility is > critical and bloat is bad (everyone here in favor of bloat raise their > hand!). But your version on conservative includes the ability load > arbitrary C and C++ code that can break security, corrupt the database, > crash the server, who knows what. At the same time, even the most laudable > of plugin binaries is tied to a single platform. Moving the plugin from > server to server is a manual operation, and moving it to a different > platform is a manual *skilled* operation. > > Nimbus/Netfrastructure triggers, stored procedures, user defined types > (if/when I get to them), and aggregating interfaces are Java. All run in a > sandbox, and all run in the same sandbox. None has database access rights > beyond those of the user who instantiated them. None have access to server > internals or other connections. No malformed extension can even be loaded. > And, wonder of wonders, they can be replicated around a network of servers > using the same mechanisms as data replication. One mechanism, > computationally sufficient, and secure. > > Compared to this, doesn't drizzle look more like anarchy (as opposed to > Annarchy, which is rule by Ann, presumably a good thing)? > > I don't expect to convince anyone, so if you'd like the last word, take it, > and I'll let it drop. >> >> > > -- Roland Bouman http://rpbouman.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
