Re: [UM1-coders] Object Store

[J.P. K. <jp...@he...>]

> > No, it wouldn't.  Is this really a problem?
> Yes.  Users have come to expect the site to be fast.
And the overhead of another process is really going to impinge on this?
I don't see it myself - we aren't talking about starting a new process,
merely talking to an already running one.

> > Does this problem outweigh the potential benefits?
> Yes.  Witness the number of times I've seen MUSH databases go tits-up.
> However, see later.
Sorry, I don't see why a MUSH database going tits up means that
Ugly having a separate persistant store to the main game engine
process.  The Object store should be fast enough that if it falls
over it can be made to bounce back up rather fast...

> > Yes, although ideally we'd like ways of atomising operations, or
> > supporting rollback.
> 
> Quite.
> 
> [Below] The modern C++ object stores can do transparent, transactional
> persistence and object caching in-process.  If there's a free one, it would
> certanly be worth investigating.  But we shouldn't try to roll our own.

I absolutely agree that we shouldn't start from scratch and roll our own.
I am trawling a few places to see what I can see, thus far only one looks
interesting enough to even investigate, although that is in Java.

How expensive are the non-free ones?

> 		- Peter

Julian