Hi, Am Samstag, 18. Februar 2006 02:38 schrieb Evan Daniel: > On 2/17/06, Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > > Is it worth breaking backwards compatibility for the 0.7 datastore (with > > prior builds of 0.7) to fix an inherent 64TB limit? > > > > The code uses an int for offsets into files, which is easily fixed. > > However it also uses, on disk, an int for block numbers. This means > > datastores are limited to 2G * 32K = 64TB. Normally I wouldn't regard > > this as a big problem, but since we are in pre-alpha, and since there > > isn't that much content, I'm inclined to make the change... > > How hard would it be to have two versions of the DS code? Then new > installs could default to the big version, and old ones could keep the > old version. There's nothing inherent that says the two can't talk to > each other, right?
Now, that would be just about the worst thing they could do. One of the most important aspects of software design is to avoid unneccessary complexity. By supporting two versions of the ds, you're adding complexity, even if it's just a little, for what? Backwards compatibilty support for something that has only ever mattered during a very short period of time during the early alpha stages? -- Mailing list archives are not a proper form of documentation.
