Liane Praza writes: > I don't inherently cringe. (Others might, but they can speak for > themselves.) It's the fact that sqlite3 has an entirely different > library API, plus the extensive retesting that would be required that's > kept us from prioritizing the work since there would be no > administratively visible benefit from the switch. But, I have no reason > to discourage someone from exploring it.
Having fewer copies would be a benefit, though I agree that (other than patching) it'd be hard for an admin to see that. > (SMF's not the only consumer of sqlite2 in ON though, I thought. > Removing SMF's use wouldn't change the other consumers' needs.) The only other one that does the libsqlite.o reach-around is idmapd, and in the review for PSARC 2006/315, they said they were using it because SMF was using it. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
