On Thu, Apr 27, 2000 at 01:57:05PM -0500, Chuck Milam wrote:
> > I'm not a database type of programmer, but I do know that a proper
> > database structure has to come first.
>
> Truer words were never spoken. With a decent database structure
> and back-end built up, the front ends become the easy part.
>
> If I were to vote for a back-end, I'd choose Postgresql. Completely free,
> full-featured and just plain chock-full of goodness. Heh.
That's what nettebook uses. (see www.nettebook.org)
The concepts of people, places, things and conversations are well
defined, so really a QSO is just a specialized kind of conversation.
I don't think it'd be too hard a feature to add.
I also have an (older) experimental packet stations database, but I'm
thinking of trying to roll that into nettebook as well. That is
presently at http://cx47646-a.phnx1.az.home.com/hamnet/
The GIS aspect to it is what I planned on finding most useful but
that part is not implemented yet at all. And so far it only handles
NetROM stations. After I'd implemented that I realized I was going to
get very little reuse of either schema chunks or code when implementing
the TCP/IP network features etc. It was not quite a good enough design.
To me abstraction is very important... you could design a schema just
for logging but then it wouldn't be useful for anything else. Likewise
with my packet stations thing. But it's hard to draw the line just how
extreme to get with the abstraction, because relational databases have
their limits too.
--
_______ Shawn T. Rutledge / KB7PWD [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(_ | |_) http://www.bigfoot.com/~ecloud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__) | | \________________________________________________________________
Get money for spare CPU cycles at http://www.ProcessTree.com/?sponsor=5903
