On Jan 3, 2007, at 2:28 PM, Bill Burcham wrote:
On 1/3/07, Moxley Stratton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Without going into the proprietary details of the project, I'll use a
metaphore. There's a particular part of the application that is a
like a
user-defined database, where the user can define the schema. For this
discussion, I'll call this user role a Maintainer. There may be
thousands of Maintainers, each with their own database.
Because that a) the databases are user-defined, and b) there will be
thousands of them, I'll make the assumption that Maintainers cannot
have
their own physical database (or physical set of tables). Instead, a
more
exotic scheme would be needed. What will that scheme look like? I'm
not
sure. The first idea that popped in my head involved storing XML in an
RDBMS that knows how to query XML (e.g., MySQL can).
I'm having two thoughts. The first thought is along the lines of
what Moxley is thinking -- do your own thing. In that case it
starts to sound a lot like what Avi Bryant talks about with respect
to dabbledb. Apparently for dabbledb they built all kinds of home
made indexing and query stuff. Unfortunately I think that stuff is
proprietary and didn't get into seaside.
The last I read, dabbledb doesn't use a database at all. It just
saves all the data a Squeak image. One image per user.
Perhaps a better solution for you is to look at doing something
similar, like just persist a hash with various arrays and other
goodies in it? Dabbledb can get away with it because each individual
user's dataset is comparatively small (and the whole thing is helped
out by the fact that it's in Squeak with images but that's a whole
'nother issue ;) ). If each user's datasets are fairly small, that
might be the easiest way to go for you.
-Dane
_______________________________________________
PDXRuby mailing list
[email protected]
IRC: #pdx.rb on irc.freenode.net
http://lists.pdxruby.org/mailman/listinfo/pdxruby
