Chris Beck wrote:
> I noticed some chatting late last year about support for
> Oracle/MySQL/SQL Server/PostreSQL. Nothing much happened. Since
> there isn't much of a roadmap other than "We'd like to include
> exclusive check-outs in 1.2" I thought I would raise the issue here
> again before making an official enhancement request in the issue tracker.
>
> So. What is the status of work/desire for remote SQL repository
> backends?
>
First off I'm nothing more than a user of subversion, not a developer.
Secondly I have a lot of development experience, almost exclusively
database related.
My take on this knowing nothing of the background or previous
discussions....
Relational databases are great for dynamic representations of data and
allow lots of way to
look at and represent that data from a user prespective. This
functionality comes at a cost
which is worth it considering the flexibility.
What would this 'flexibility' buy subversion?
The speed penalty from what I've been told in the case of berkeley DB
VS relational databases is 10-100 TIMES.
Subversion already has a reputation for being slow. By definition
everything it reads or writes goes to that database,
do we want that to slow down by several orders of magnitude.
Subversion preforms a very specific task from a database standpoint the
flexibility complex SQL queries provide are useless.
The only 'advantage' generic database support would provide would be to
allow people to "muck" with the data directly.
That is a bad idea IMHO.
Subversion provides an easily automated command line interface and APIs
to provide an abstracted interface to the
logical information describing a repository, what more would anyone
need? What can of worms does that open?
Marc
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Aug 12 00:31:34 2004