Roland Bouman wrote: > 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....)
/me still contends that with proper interfaces plugins don't have to break each build. Re-compile maybe, but not break. We're not nearly there yet, of course. > 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. >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
