On 2013-03-01 4:44 AM, ianG wrote: > The issue that occurs at high level is that networks look at this > issue in one way, and databases look at it in another way. Possibly > for good reasons. When we meld the two together, this perspective > distinction creates an impedance mismatch. Databases tend to say you > can create a record, and access a record that is created. Networks > tend to say that you can cause an action, idempotently. Databases tend > not to use the idempotent language. (See James' post for the network > context, and some singing to the choir about TCP being a pretty poor > excuse for a large datagrams protocol.)
Database software assumes a reliable connection, in which the underlying unreliability is fully concealed, possibly at the expense of long and unpredictable delays. Reliability is usually a pretty good approximation, as the wire to the database is typically short, and there is no contention for it.. Networks assume an unreliable connection, in which the underlying unreliability shows through in various ways, because the wire is long, and has much contention. Tahoe is operating on a noticeably unreliable connection. _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
