At 01:26 AM 10/18/2001 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
>If you turned off caching (I'm not sure how this would work in MK),
>and you used the ad-hoc-foreign-key trick, would MK work with stock
>schemas and with multiple (non-MK) clients?
Yes.
Note that what is returned from store.fetchObjectsOfClass()
Chuck Esterbrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In direct answer to your question, yes I have projects where multiple
> clients hit the database, but no they are all MK. (Unless you count the
> MySQL GUI that I sometimes use to fix things up.)
If you turned off caching (I'm not sure how this woul
> I think many web apps including my own could realize a big performance gain
> if they only had to fetch objects that changed. I'd really like to see
> databases allow clients to listen for this info, or a solution that effects
> the same thing but as an add-on/tool.
I've done this in a convo
At 11:21 PM 10/17/2001 -0600, Jack Moffitt wrote:
> > Not only doesn't MK deal well with legacy databases, I don't think it
> > would deal well at all with non-MK clients accessing and updating the
> > database. At least that is my impression, as MK does a lot of
> > caching.
>
>I'd like to hear
> Do you have to access that storage from different programs? If not
> then you could just transfer the information to the new (slightly
> different) database structure.
Well, yes. That's part of the reason for using LDAP, in that browsing
clients can use it directly. So one interface would be
At 11:02 PM 10/17/2001 -0600, Jack Moffitt wrote:
> > At 07:39 PM 10/17/2001 -0600, Jack Moffitt wrote:
> > >Has anyone put any brainpower towards this already that I can jump in
> > >on? Chuck mentioned he had some ideas... what are they? :)
> >
> > I did? Er, I use MK for just about everything.
> At 07:39 PM 10/17/2001 -0600, Jack Moffitt wrote:
> >Has anyone put any brainpower towards this already that I can jump in
> >on? Chuck mentioned he had some ideas... what are they? :)
>
> I did? Er, I use MK for just about everything.
As you said in the snippet I quoted, you had some ideas f
]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 10:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Webware-devel] MiddleKit thoughts
> Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Anyway, that's where I am myself. There's other similar things to MK,
> >
Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, that's where I am myself. There's other similar things to MK,
> but most of them are lame dictionary interfaces (which capture the
> easy 90% of the problem, but just make the other 10% of SQL queries
> more awkward). I've looked at PyDO a little
Jack Moffitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MiddleKit seems to be very easy when you don't to worry about the
> database details. But when you have a storage system already in place
> and need the middle objects, it doesn't really help.
Do you have to access that storage from different programs?
At 07:39 PM 10/17/2001 -0600, Jack Moffitt wrote:
>Has anyone put any brainpower towards this already that I can jump in
>on? Chuck mentioned he had some ideas... what are they? :)
I did? Er, I use MK for just about everything.
Something interesting that one of the MK users brought up is that y
11 matches
Mail list logo
