On Mar 17, 2009, at 3:07 PM, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 5:29 AM, Mark Leith <[email protected]> wrote:
On 16 Mar 2009, at 21:08, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
Yay for open source, eh?
So we are not allowed paying customers, with custom NRE work, if we
are
open source? :)
Not at all. But in a world when there's a community actively
working on
similar enhancements, having the code available for study seems more
useful
than hiding it--unless these customers fear that it'll somehow
damage their
businesses.
Even though the code is available within Sun it was paid for by a
customer and sadly that
contract doesn't allow publication under the GPL, AFAIK.
The current 5.0 custom branch was/is based on Solaris event ports
only (
http://developers.sun.com/solaris/articles/event_completion.html), so
wasn't really applicable for the main stream server (because it only
supported one platform). That's why we looked at doing it with
libevent in
6.0 - so the NRE work helped to drive the new feature in the later
release
which is more applicable to everybody..
It would be far from the first open source code that didn't support
a lot of
platforms when it first became public, now would it?
Not for MySQL, no? I'm pretty sure there's some document that says it
has to work
on all platforms we support for Enterprise if it should make its way
into an official, non-NRE,
build or tree. You can argue whether or not that's always the best
thing to do, but it is what it is…
Yes, it has some issues. Yes, Support (and others) are pushing for
fixes to
much of that as well - 6.0 is still Alpha, so hopefully we should
see some
good headway before GA.
Yay for closed source NRE work pushing Open Source development
too! ;)
Does that mean we *are* likely to see the code someday?
No idea, but personally, I'd think that's unlikely. OTOH the
experience gained will certainly be
reflected in whatever improvements are made in 6.0.
And, yeah, I agree it sucks that the code isn't open.
I'm now a little confused? Is it that the code isn't worth sharing
because
it only runs on one platform and will likely be replaced, or is it
that
you're worried about having to support it and want to get some bugs
worked
out first?
I think it's a legal matter, certainly not trying to withhold anything
from the public just
because Sun/MySQL feels like it. Obviously everyone would benefit from
having it open.
In either case, it's not like Drizzle is in the hands of a
population of
users asking for support already. It's very much in active
development.
Thanks for speaking up on this, but please do clarify the intent
here. I
get the sense that the non-Sun/MySQL folks may benefit from seeing
what's
built.
To beat a dead horse (just because I think it's important to make the
point):
At no point Sun/MySQL intended to withhold the code from the developer
community to "hide" something.
The code was built for the customer in question as part of an NRE
engagement.
As such it is supported for that customer, but for 6.0 a different
strategy was chosen to
implement pool-of-threads. I don't know the reasons why and how that
decision was made.
cheers,
-k
--
Kay Roepke
Software Engineer, MySQL Enterprise Tools
Sun Microsystems GmbH Sonnenallee 1, DE-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitz d. Aufs.rat.: Martin Haering HRB MUC 161028
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
