On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 02:11:52AM +0200, Roland Bouman wrote: > Hi Eric, > > think there are more issues than just performance and security. > For me portability is one. > > IMO, Its a hassle to recompile because objects exposed by the > interface happened to get their layout changed in the latest build, or > I have to recompile plugins in a mixed 32/64 bit environment. > > (Are these valid reasons?)
Hi Roland, Agreed, portability is an issue. But there are a few different solutions here before trading in the performance gains. First, designing the plugin system to not export objects directly is a start, this means a recompile may not be necessary for a server upgrade. If the interface is wrapped correctly, and perhaps even versioned, this can go a long way. Another thing to consider is if Drizzle is really going to push "plugins for everything", it's going to need some way to manage all those plugins (from all sources). We may need to start up a CPAN/PEAR/PECL/.. like repository for Drizzle plugins, and perhaps do dependency checking like aptitude/dpkg. So, when you upgrade the core server or move platforms, you can just run a single command to download, extract, and recompile your installed plugins. The other solution of course is how Linux does it, throw every plugin known into a huge tarball and build what you want. I'm not a huge fan of this method, at least for a DBMS. Anyways, I'm just giving examples, I'm sure there are more (and probably better) solutions before compromising performance. -Eric _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
