Re: Many backends (WAS: Re: [Phpwiki-talk] Wiki spam and the future of phpwiki)

[Arnaud F. <ar...@cr...>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dan Frankowski wrote:
| See, I completely disagree. Why keep flatfile and cvs and dba? I've see=
n
| Reini wasting time answering people who email the list, "Probably dba i=
s
| not installed on your system" etc. Why not just keep ONE of flatfile,
| cvs and dba? Why keep all 3? You have not made a strong case.
|
| All the back-ends cost a TON in support, both development and even more
| on the mailing lists and in user frustration. This contradicts your
| "release early and often" above. Rather, make one or two back-ends work
| really well.

H=E9h=E9 :)
I completly ... agree :) we should keep at least one non sql dependent
backend. DB files are great because hash files are quite fast for the
wiki purpose, you only have 1 file to backup, it's trivial to install
... but yes, you need dba and a dba backend installed on your system.
CVS ... great ... but you need CVS installed.
Flatfile ... good too, no dependency ... fast on common operations, slow
on some.
Which one to keep ??
And can't we have a plugin approch to storage so it will be easier to
maintain and any one can make a special backend if he wants to ...
Same for the wiki syntax and the output format ... you drop a plugin
where it needs to be dropped and ... you have a new syntax, output
format, storage system ...

| We should first reduce the support load and focus on what PhpWiki does
| best, whatever that is.

Agree.

Arnaud
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCTWJKyAf3wgFyy1ARAuasAJ4hT01+eiuJljzT7Km3qjmtK6XRewCgpsO2
Jtq2GRpPW/xD8ljsWDJxxIY=3D
=3DLx/d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----