Re: [9fans] web-based plan 9?

["Giacomo Tesio" <giacomo@tesio.it>]

On 11/21/08, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
> databases seem pretty far outside 9fans territory and design
> on a mailing list doesn't seem like a good idea  ...

Excuse me... BTW, is there a mailing list to discuss such design problems?
I could not be consider a Plan 9 user, yet, I've just studied it for a while.
Proposing such a framework was a way to check my understanding, too.

> since a relational database isn't imperative thing, i have never
> understood having a imperative interface to one, especially an
> unconstrained interface.  if you have a problem big enough to
> warrant a database, it will get refactored, rekeyed, renormaled &c.

Still data conteined will be consistent.

I would have a lot of work to do, but who would pay for my time would
not loose it's informations. They will be differently organized,
differetly used... ok.

But "the problem", the new feature requested, is what HE need.

(and, in the last 3 years, I've never got such a destructing
refactoring in any of the database I designed - and they were not
blog/toy db ;-D )

> ..it needs be a big boy and take care of itself.

There are product/project where many different professions are needed.

Even if I'm often a glue among different fields, no one could do
everything alone.

Different tiers allow different men to work together.
That's why we use db. Moreover if a man commit an error, db
constraints keep data safe. And who pay me could accept a bug in the
software if his data (suppose the contability of a bank) are kept ok.

>  would you put up with a file system
> that required you to do the locking and inode allocation yourself?

Why? The question is not clear to me...

>
> - erik


Giacomo