From: kent landfield (kent@hypermail.org)
Date: Tue Jul 15 2003 - 17:22:23 CDT
Peter C. McCluskey writes:
>
> kent@hypermail.org (kent landfield) writes:
> >Why not just add SQL support to the sources as a compile-time option ?
> >Mysql and postgres are widely used to support web sites. Wouldn't it
> >be better for admins to have support that doesn't require using multiple
> >types of databases ? Just a thought...
>
> I suspect that SQL database installations are sufficiently nonstandard
> that installation problems will increase. I wouldn't want to complicate
> the configure/make process any more unless it can clearly be done in a
> way that doesn't impact people who don't use SQL databases.
> The goals associated with putting the info in SQL databases seem sufficiently
> different from the goal of creating html archives that I think the default
> implementation should be to keep the code separate.
> Are there any important disadvantages to putting SQL support in a separate
> utility or utilities?
Like I said earlier, I should have read further into my mailbox before I
responded but... The configure/make issues should not be an issue. The
installation would. That's probably something that would need to be done
outside the regular 'make install'. If compiled with SQL support the
'make install' could simply issue a warning to read the INSTALL.SQL file.
What I'm trying to say is there are ways to make it easier. I really have
no problem with external/internal. It can be made to work reasonably
either way with enough cycles. There is no reason it should complicate
matters for those that do not wish to use it.
-- Kent Landfield | HYPERMAIL: http://www.hypermail.org/ Email: kent@hypermail.org | RFCS: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/