Re: resubmit your dbm/gdbm-based DLR storage patch and vote to phase out internal DLR storage in favor of DBM DLR storage
Stipe Tolj <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.mobile.kannel.devel |
|---|---|
| Organization | The Kannel Group |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Alexander Malysh wrote:
>
> the problem is described above. I'm +1 for dbm/gdbm as optional module but
> -1 for dropping internal dlr support. that's it...
agree'ing here to Alex. Same with me.
Internal storage is something "weak" in terms of message loose while
restart/shutdown. But it's up to the user if he wants persistance or now, and is
willing to pay for the performance trade-off.
Even while I can understand Davy's point too. Actually dbm routines are present
at any modern-time POSIX system (even on Cygwin ;) and a logical switch to a
per-default persistant DLR storage type may be an option.
More opinions and discussion please on this one. I'm struggling with arguments
from Alex (more dependancy) and Davy (more default persistance with on-board
libs like dbm).
Stipe
mailto:stolj_{at}_wapme.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wapme Systems AG
Vogelsanger Weg 80
40470 Düsseldorf, NRW, Germany
phone: +49.211.74845.0
fax: +49.211.74845.299
mailto:info_{at}_wapme-systems.de
http://www.wapme-systems.de/
-------------------------------------------------------------------