DConf Database Suggestion

[Rodrigo Moya]

On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 00:26 +0100, 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.
> 
some RDBMS provide notifications, and it's planned to add support for
it, and, for backends that don't support them, simulate the
notifications in some way. For instance, the XML backend can simulate
the notifications very easily, and similar for other backends.
-- 
Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo at gnome-db.org>