On Sat, 29 Jan 2000, Patrick Hayes wrote:
> I would still like there to be an option to use native access to data when a
> site is specifically being tweaked for a particular host (maybe an optional
> database type parameter on database calls, which defaults to ODBC?). I
> almost always use ODBC / JDBC at my work, and it's great, but specialized
> functions such as streaming will surely be lost in ODBC access. The only
> reason I would ever spend money on something like Db2 or Oracle is to get
> some needed extra functionality a free equivalent isn't going to give me.
There's been talk of native connectors in 2.0. I don't really know
what their status is. But I do think ODBC has streaming facilites,
they'll just not work when the backend database doesn't support it.
If I'm wrong here please feel free to correct me as this is pretty
important.
> Right. But a standard Midgard function to automate the process would be
> much better. It always seems like 95% of programming is reinventing the
> wheel, since nobody created a standard function to do what you want, though
> it's a common need. Similarly, a lot of what I'm doing on a project funded
> by the US military is copying and tweaking code, since much of the needed
> functionality exists in some fashion in related pieces of the project. It
> should have been created as standardized functions (and will be, by the time
> I'm done with it ;-).
However we're going to handle the actual storage, management and serving
is going to be done transparently. Page blobs will probably be served
directly using the appropriate mechanism (still governed by access
control of course), for serving attachments to other objects a single
(set of) PHP level function will be offered.
> To make it clearer, what I meant is that we could have a storage function
> which, when you hand it a really big file, would actually store it as a
> series of smaller records in a size and record type appropriate for the
> particular database (be it 16K, 512K, or whatever; would need a bit of
> experimentation). And of course there would be a metatable which says the
> filename, size, permissions, location in the data blocks table, etc. This
> isn't as good as a streaming database, but would have the advantage of
> working under ODBC.
I like this.
> Thanks for your efforts!
Don't thank me quite yet :) This is still just brainstorming about the
concepts. Implementation is another issue as it will be done in my
Copious Free Time (ahem). If anyone out there is bored I have a project
list that should keep you covered 'till xmas :)
> (BTW, I'm still working on the project I mentioned a few months ago which
> can import sites into Midgard from other site creation tools. It's coming
> along nicely. Hopefully we'll have a alpha of the NetObjects Fusion version
> out soon.)
I'm quite curious on this one. Keep us posted.
Emile
--
This is The Midgard Project's mailing list. For more information,
please visit the project's web site at http://www.midgard-project.org
To unsubscribe the list, send an empty email message to address
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
