>-----Original Message----- >From: Mauricio Piacentini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 1:42 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [sqlite] Lock files.... > > >Fred Williams wrote: >> I picked SQLite for its minuscule (by today's standards) footprint, >> simplicity, and ease of deployment. >> >> Why do I get the feeling I've bought into a product like any model in the >> American car market. With each passing interation the vehicle >gets bigger, >> fatter, and less efficient. This continues until the model >bears absolutely >> no resemblance to the original. But, it does have electric fold >down rear >> seats to the advantage of the totally clueless. > >I don't think version 3 has compromised the core premise offered by >SQLite, but I agree with your analogy as something to watch for in the >future. For instance: the new locking scheme in version 3 is irrelevant >to me, since SQLite is embedded in my application and I run it as a >single thread. However, I can see that attempts to prevent locking when >accessing the db file by multiple threads are something that benefit the >core product feature set and are real issues when you write >multithreaded code. >On the other hand, when (if) changes are made in order to make multiple >programs access a shared db file then I believe we begin to risk code >bloat, as in these scenarios one should clearly use a client/server >database scheme and there are several good ones already available and >proven. There is no need to bloat SQLite to cover this usage scenarior imo. >But of course the code is highly modular. I like the fact that you can >ommit some features when compiling by editing sqlite.h >(ommit_authorization, etc.) This is a very good design decision, as it >allows developers to continue embedding without some of the optional >features AND makes it possible to add these features in a very simple >way, without a formal plugin mechanism or something like that. So if >anything I would request that some of the optional features were always >implemented as modules that could be selected at compile time (when >possible of course), and everyone would be happy. > >Regards, >Mauricio >
Sorry my "late binding", object oriented brain washing gets out of control on occasion. Your preference for compile time selection is suitable as well, though I hate waiting on compiles, or trusting me to change the make file options. Fred
