From: Andrew S. <an...@ne...> - 2001-02-13 17:55:53
|
Tom Gilbert said: > I still have those IRC logs btw :) Now now, Mr Giblet. =) > He didn't want it, he said it had to be dbs (presumably because he is > reading from them so frequently) and that his void * pointer > abstraction was enough, all you have to do to change the config > implementation is rewrite EDB (!). Does this mean that now, in order for monkeyiq's proposal to be implemented, the ENTIRE mechanism would need to be scrapped? Or would edb need to be completely rewritten, but things using it can continue doing so in their current manner? Or (least hassle, presumably) is it still possible to shove the main stuff in edb back a few inches to stick in the freedom-of-choice bit? This is without going into the whole config file/db caching thing, as I haven't made up my mind as to whether or not there is actually an arguable point there or not. Comments welcomed, please. I always support the notion of flexibility and open-endedness where possible, and I think it would be a real shame if things were already so nailed down that this proposal couldn't be followed through. (Regardless of who suggested it first. *hands Tom a new bottle of red to keep him quiet*) Andrew. -- Andrew Shugg <an...@ne...> http://www.neep.com.au/ "Just remember, Mr Fawlty, there's always someone worse off than yourself." "Is there? Well I'd like to meet him. I could do with a good laugh." |