Re: resubmit your dbm/gdbm-based DLR storage patch and vote to phase out internal DLR storage in favor of DBM DLR storage

Hi,

fred wrote:

> "> I'm really -1 for dropping internal dlr storage. bdb or gdbm may be
> overkill
>> for small setups and forces external dependency (with is the goal why we
>> support mysql/pgsql/oracle). user should decide which one to use w/o
>> forcing them to install yet another database just to be able to use
>> dlr's.
> "
> surely we have it configurable as to which storage mechanism we use, we
> are not
> forced to install yet another db if we don't want.  and theres no need
> to drop one thats there. So as default, keeping the internal mem one is
> ok. As for external dependency, dbm or gdbm has a dependency
> on a library, so do the other that are already there oracle,mysql etc,
> so the truth! what is the problem?

the problem is described above. I'm +1 for dbm/gdbm as optional module but
-1 for dropping internal dlr support. that's it...


-- 
Thanks,
Alex