On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:11 PM R.Wieser <address@not.available> wrote: > > Chris, > > > That's what transactions are for. > > Again, > > >> I guess that that went right over your head. :-) /You/ might know > >> exactly > >> what should and shouldn't be done, what makes you think the OP currently > >> does ? > > > I don't understand why you're denigrating databases, > > Am I denigrating a nut-and-bolt when glue would be an easier solution ? > > The problem with most people (programmers included) that they often > over-think (and thus over-complicate) stuff. I think that a database is > /definitily/ overcomplicating stuff, especially when looking at the OP who's > supposed to write and maintain it. Y personal MMV. >
Okay, sure... but you didn't say that. You said that a database could become corrupted. If you read back in this thread, you'll see that the first recommendations were NOT about databases, and then databases were offered as an alternative. You then said that they could become corrupted just as files can. This is outright false, and is also not helpful to the discussion. So I responded. But I wasn't advocating for the use of a database; my first and strongest recommendation was, and still is, a stateless system wherein the files themselves are the entire indication of which documents have been downloaded. So what IS your line of argument? ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
