On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 18:43 -0500, Thomas Sibley wrote: > Brian Fahrlander wrote: > > Yeah, and in most other cases I'd agree, but there's just so _darned_ > > much already situated around MySQL; so many programs, APIs and things. > > Look at PHP and python bindings and such. I don't dislike SQLite, it's > > clever, and efficient but with so many things on (at least) Fedora > > already using it, it seems a shame to go re-invent the wheel. It would > > bring up another level of incompatibility that just doesn't have to be. > > I was under the impression that PHP embedded a copy of SQLite in it's > interpreter that you could use natively. I'm positive Python has SQLite > bindings. I know Perl does. I don't see how MySQL has any more support > other than apps locked into it. How is SQLite reinventing the wheel? > > In any case, a move to a SQL database should be a move to any SQL > database; RB (or any app), shouldn't tie you down to the developer's > choice of DB engines.
Maybe so, but the day I have to do anything more than apt-get install rhythmbox to set it up, is the day I'll probably stop using it - and I'm prepared to go further than most. Any database backend default that can't be automatically set up by the packaging system is one that will provide a significant barrier-to-entry for RB uptake. This is not to say that RB shouldn't have switchable backends, but the default should never be something like mySQL that requires user-intervention to set up databases and db login permissions. J. -- Jan Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ rhythmbox-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/rhythmbox-devel
