DConf Database Suggestion
rodrigo at gnome-db.org
Tue Apr 12 19:57:16 EEST 2005
On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 00:58 +0100, Jamie McCracken wrote:
> Dave Cridland wrote:
> > On Sat Apr 9 11:56:22 2005, Jamie McCracken wrote:
> >> I was wondering if it might be better to use libgda as an API to the
> >> backend rather than using the Sqlite API directly.
> > Probably, but I personally think it's way too early to be talking about
> > implementation details. Moreover:
> >> One of the advantages of using a client/server RDBMS will be easy
> >> remote control and lockdown of settings. A DBA which most enterprises
> >> will have can easily use the SQL grant/revoke to prevent write access
> >> to tables that dconf utilises (something which might prove difficult
> >> to do with Sqlite as it has no user authentication). Indeed remote
> >> administration will also be most effective this way.
> > Since SQL doesn't have notifications, tweaking the configuration via SQL
> > will likely turn out to be a bad idea. You'll lose any possibility of
> > if-not-modified-since style functionality working, in this case. Havoc
> > will most likely say that this doesn't matter - I think it does. Any
> > administrator going behind the configuration system's back deserves the
> > problems it will cause.
> Most sql servers support event notification thereby allowing the client
> to listen on a tcp port for such events. A simple trigger on the
> table(s) is all thats needed to deliver such notification. THere is
> however no standard between servers for this communication so a
> propriety solution would be needed for each type of SQL server (unless a
> future libgda supports/abstracts this).
yes, that is the plan
Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo at gnome-db.org>
More information about the xdg