On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 11:57:07AM -0700, george stewart wrote:
> As John said earlier this week, there's no single
> soution to these problems. If the main concern is
> efficiency, village and MySQL is a good solution. For
> portability and ease of programming, I hope that some
> will find OPL useful.
George,
For simplicity and efficiency the Peer model is looking better and
better, and _is_ reasonable portable. Jon's code to build the mapbuilder
from a DB scheme plus dave's coming code to generate Peers and data
objects for you will make it pretty simple to use.
If we're still looking at a Turbine release fairly soon then I think
having the Peer model well-honed, with additions like the transaction
support Nissim is adding is the right way to go.
Beyond that it would certainly enhance the choices that Turbine offers
to have more fully featured and robust persistence layer based on your
OPL code available, with the possibility of migrating to a modular
architecture for the persitence layer like you suggest.
Why don't you look at bringing the OPL code in Turbine up to speed with
your latest work? (you still have CVS write right? :-) )
Sean
--
Sean Legassick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
