Re: EDS
Robert Craig wrote:
>I can always change the implementation if people start
>creating million record databases.
>
>> I need the ability to lock individual records,
>> make a change, and write the change back to disk (quickly)
>> before unlocking the record for someone else to use. I see no
>> way this can be done without some kind of fixed size record.
>
>Euphoria 2.2 has file and variable-length record locking
>(only file locking so far in the case of Linux). I will eventually
>add this in to EDS. I don't think that having fully-flexible
>record and field lengths will cause a serious problem.
>It just makes storage allocation and deallocation more
>complicated and somewhat slower.
>
As Euphoria starts to get an industrial strength IDE and windows
library along with a few other odds and ends, why not just go ahead
and do things as if we were headed for that industrial-strength world.
If we get namespace resolution and structures and the other few
odds and ends needed embedded into the language along with an
industrial strength DB and IDE and GUI libs, there will be few limits
to the things that can reasonably be attempted in Euphoria. The
request for a direct C call facility, eliminating the need for define_cfunc and
all that would allow us access to the rest of the world's code.
Maybe the attempt to do these industrial-strength things will point
out the needs that are left in the language.
Everett L.(Rett) Williams
rett at gvtc.com
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
