> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
< - snip - >
> > Michael is currently overseas, with limited access to
> email, so we may not
> > hear from him on this subject.
> >
Combining responses here. One of the reasons I pointed this out was that
Michael is the official project manager, and is the principle of the HSQLdb
Development Group, Inc., as well as the holder of hsqldb.org. Without his
cooperation, you may be forced to start another project.
> > I had health issues that dragged on for an extended time,
> followed shortly
> > thereafter by the birth of my twin sons,
>
> hey congrats! kids rule!
>
Thanks! If only I had some idea of how much sleep I was going to lose.
< - snip - >
> > writing about my experiences with Microsoft's .NET Platform
> for a couple of
> > magazines and an upcoming book.
>
> Bad to hear :)
Depends on your point of view. Writing about new technologies pays
reasonably, as well as getting your name out there for people to see.
Besides, my company has put it's Unix products in "maintenance mode" and is
actively selling only our Windows products. Also, the C# version of the
current architecture offers well beyond a 300% performance increase over
HSQLdb with the latest .NET release candidates... +/- 35,000,000
transactions per hour, TPC-B benchmark. (TCP-B is appropriate for our
business, not the later benchmarks, which are more geared towards
data-mining and reporting queries.) The Java version can't touch that.
>
> Possibly. People are using the current architecture and we
> need to move forward
> with it. This includes better documentation, integration of
> bugfixes, etc.
>
> I have no opinion on this codebase design vs a 2.0 redesign.
And I have publicly stated that I didn't care about anything other than the
engine architecture and design. It's simply an interesting area of research
for me. My hope was always that someone would step forward to do the
housekeeping.
< - snip - >
> > the size of the jar file, there are 136 classes in the
> optimizer alone.
>
> I don't know that the size of the jar file is relevant except
> for those
> developing applets.
>
> This is yet another reason for stabilizing the current code
> base while possibly
> moving onto another architecture.
A lot of people surveyed were using HypersonicSQL/HSQLdb in applets. I was.
The number of people using it's server or servlet modes was quite low
initially. That was the reason for introducing the idea of a more modular
design, where you could 'roll your own' at compilation time so to speak.
Much of what I see being discussed is not stabilizing the code, but some
fairly major surgery that I don't believe will be possible without having
severe impact on performance, however time will tell. A number of submitted
patches had side effects. I believe Fred and Mike were looking at these as
time allowed.
< - snip - >
>
> Yes. I agree. Of course this discussion is very technical
> and should not be
> done on the site but in the mailing list.
You and I have disagreed on this in the past. Moot point now.
> Come on... there is no excuse for working outside of CVS.
> If you are outside of CVS, you are outside of the project. :(
> If you can not use CVS on your network, get on another network.
> Besides. CVS at sourceforge uses SSH not HTTP.
Sure there is. This was a hobby project for me, graciously permitted by my
employer. I can't access CVS at Sourceforge from here. I will never
believe that putting an empty tree in CVS and working in plain site would
have done anything other than generate annoyances for me. Better to wait
until I could submit a reasonably complete structure. Remember, it was not a
matter of rewriting, it started with a blank screen. Get on another
network? Let's see, I'll throw away a career with a measure of industry
respect, a nice salary, good options package, etc. so that I can get on a
more open network connection to give away my work. Right...
> Constructive feedback is very important if you plan a
> rewrite. MORE important
> than the code base we are working on because peer review is
> important in this
> process.
I agree, however based on what I have seen, I don't think most of the
participants in that public discussion would contribute more than noise,
database theory is out of reach for most code slingers. Design
considerations were actively reviewed with people who could offer both
practical and theoretical input.
< - snip - >
>
> Someone needs be admin. Can this be multiple people?
Better take that up with Mike when he gets back.
Mark
_______________________________________________
hsqldb-developers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hsqldb-developers
