Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Database Server Role
Once upon a time, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com said: The Fedora Server Product will provide a standard deployment mechanism for a Linux Database Server (powered by the postgresql project). How about just calling this the PostgreSQL Server role? Why should this get the generic database name (what if the MariaDB maintainers want to make a Database Server as well for example)? No matter the engine, users have to know what they are connecting to; there is no generic talk to the database server protocol, so I don't see a reason to try to make a generic database server role. -- Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Database Server Role
On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 08:03 -0600, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com said: The Fedora Server Product will provide a standard deployment mechanism for a Linux Database Server (powered by the postgresql project). How about just calling this the PostgreSQL Server role? Why should this get the generic database name (what if the MariaDB maintainers want to make a Database Server as well for example)? No matter the engine, users have to know what they are connecting to; there is no generic talk to the database server protocol, so I don't see a reason to try to make a generic database server role. The intent is that we plan to offer one official Database Server Role for Fedora Server. By electing to use the generic name, we provide a subtle indication that this is the one that you should code against. A MariaDB or MySQL Role is certainly welcome, but by a strong majority vote in the WG, we picked PostgreSQL as the technology that Fedora Server will be backing directly. Thus, it gets to have the generic name. One of the core focuses of Fedora Server is to simplify things. It's meant to help less-experienced users of Linux get up and running with common activities more quickly. Providing the PostgreSQL role and the MariaDB role means that we've forced the user to do additional research to figure out what they want. However, if we name one Database Server, we are implicitly telling the user: use this one, unless you have a specific need. Yes, this amounts to picking a winner. This is done in the name of simplification, both in the choices that the inexperienced user has to make and in the level of resources needed to support things. (If people tend to use this database more often than the others, then it becomes easier to maintain and build up a useful knowledge base). I'll repeat, so I'm clear: If the SIGs around MariaDB, MySQL, MongoDB and others would like to create a Server Role, they are welcome to do so (and I will quite happily review those patches for inclusion!). signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Database Server Role
Am 20.01.2015 um 15:28 schrieb Stephen Gallagher: On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 08:03 -0600, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com said: The Fedora Server Product will provide a standard deployment mechanism for a Linux Database Server (powered by the postgresql project). How about just calling this the PostgreSQL Server role? Why should this get the generic database name (what if the MariaDB maintainers want to make a Database Server as well for example)? No matter the engine, users have to know what they are connecting to; there is no generic talk to the database server protocol, so I don't see a reason to try to make a generic database server role. The intent is that we plan to offer one official Database Server Role for Fedora Server. By electing to use the generic name, we provide a subtle indication that this is the one that you should code against. A MariaDB or MySQL Role is certainly welcome, but by a strong majority vote in the WG, we picked PostgreSQL as the technology that Fedora Server will be backing directly. Thus, it gets to have the generic name. One of the core focuses of Fedora Server is to simplify things. It's meant to help less-experienced users of Linux get up and running with common activities more quickly. Providing the PostgreSQL role and the MariaDB role means that we've forced the user to do additional research to figure out what they want. However, if we name one Database Server, we are implicitly telling the user: use this one, unless you have a specific need you think you do less-experienced users a favor with postgresql? the hundrets of MySQL databases i am responsible for are mostly origined in MySQL 3.x times, moved from Windows over OSX to Linux and seamless upgraded up to MariaDB 10 with any dump/restore postgresql is not *that* easy to handle hence i gave even up my playground for it long ago signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Database Server Role
Once upon a time, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com said: One of the core focuses of Fedora Server is to simplify things. It's meant to help less-experienced users of Linux get up and running with common activities more quickly. Providing the PostgreSQL role and the MariaDB role means that we've forced the user to do additional research to figure out what they want. However, if we name one Database Server, we are implicitly telling the user: use this one, unless you have a specific need. Well, but a user will still have to do that research. A database isn't like a browser or word processor; it doesn't exist in a vacuum and one database engine can't just replace another at will. Some programs support a wide variety of database engines, and some don't. For example, for good or bad, many PHP-based things assume MySQL; some can be configured otherwise, but most default to MySQL (and that may be all the developers actually test). Database engines are probably one of the least interchangeable pieces, so choosing _any_ (I'd say the same thing if this was a proposal to use MariaDB) as THE database engine is poor IM(very)HO. It isn't about promoting one engine over another, it is just that none are really the one engine to rule them all. Given that, I don't see a reason to declare any engine as the one true Database Server. I think any role for a database should have the engine name in the Role. But yeah, that's just my opinion, probably not even worth two cents. -- Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Database Server Role
- Original Message - Once upon a time, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com said: One of the core focuses of Fedora Server is to simplify things. It's meant to help less-experienced users of Linux get up and running with common activities more quickly. Providing the PostgreSQL role and the MariaDB role means that we've forced the user to do additional research to figure out what they want. However, if we name one Database Server, we are implicitly telling the user: use this one, unless you have a specific need. Well, but a user will still have to do that research. A database isn't like a browser or word processor; it doesn't exist in a vacuum and one database engine can't just replace another at will. Some programs support a wide variety of database engines, and some don't. For example, for good or bad, many PHP-based things assume MySQL; some can be configured otherwise, but most default to MySQL (and that may be all the developers actually test). Maybe this could be a very nice LAMP role. Or in our case FAMP :). Database engines are probably one of the least interchangeable pieces, so choosing _any_ (I'd say the same thing if this was a proposal to use MariaDB) as THE database engine is poor IM(very)HO. It isn't about promoting one engine over another, it is just that none are really the one engine to rule them all. Given that, I don't see a reason to declare any engine as the one true Database Server. I think any role for a database should have the engine name in the Role. I understand what you mean but also - if someone is going to deploy application that depends on specific DB, it would probably mean own installation based on app requirements. Jaroslav -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Database Server Role
== Scope == * Release engineering: ** Pre-loading roles will need to be a capability of the Anaconda install system, both in the graphical installer and kickstart While this functionality is desirable, it seems not to be directly related to the database server. Mirek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Database Server Role
On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 10:20 -0500, Miloslav Trmač wrote: == Scope == * Release engineering: ** Pre-loading roles will need to be a capability of the Anaconda install system, both in the graphical installer and kickstart While this functionality is desirable, it seems not to be directly related to the database server. Mirek Whoops. That was an oversight. I repurposed the deferred Change page from F21 and forgot to remove that optional piece. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
