DConf Database Suggestion

[Rodrigo Moya]

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>