Re: [cowiki-dev] Releasing coWiki with the "working" parser

Daniel T. Gorski wrote:

>Yes, probably. But starting to trace this bug without the transactions build
>in, would leave an "uncertainness factor". I still can not understand, why
>you try to resist using transactions. Ok, just leave it if you want. Put
>"mysql://" instead of "mysql+innodb://" in the core.conf RESOURCE entries.
>It will still work. But as said many timess before, the data loss will come
>sooner or later, __especially__ if you want to have more complex operations
>on the data base in the future.
>  
>
Daniel, it should be documented that you can DO this...  I am quite 
frustrated by your unwillingness to document your code.  If I have to 
reverse engineer it to understand how to use it, it would be better for 
me to write it as needed in the first place.

>You may also disable the filesystem file locking in FileOutputStream if you
>like.
>
>It's tedious. If you want, I can change the installer, so that it does not
>stop if InnoDB is not available with a big red blinking message: "Your data
>is not even safe on your local machine, do not use with concurrent users! We
>guarantee the integrity of the database until your first HTTP-request your
>fresh installed coWiki page. From then on you are responsible yourself if
>your data messes up - coWiki is one-use, one-way throwaway article. Thank
>you".
>  
>
Don't be silly.  If the danger is that great then any data in any wiki 
or other application might just as well be deleted now.  If the data was 
not safe before with concurrent users, we should just withdraw the 
product and recommend that everyone delete their installation.  Shall we 
publish that now?

You have lost perspective.  It seems to me that you are not considering 
other sources of error/loss apart from the database engine.  Data loss 
is much more likely for other reasons than a data overwrite from the 
engine.  Yes, it is theoretically possible.  Will it happen in 
practice?  I don't think so.  If you do, show me evidence of it.

>Is this that what you want?
>  
>
No, I want you making well thought out responses to real threats.  Show 
me *evidence* of a real threat here...

Telling the user: "InnoDB is not available.  We would prefer to use 
InnoDB format because we believe that will best secure your data.  
coWiki can also use MyISAM which is not as secure, but works well enough 
in many cases.  Would you like us to use MyISAM instead of InnoDB?" is 
quite enough warning and conveys what the user needs to know without the 
fright tactics.  :-)

Yes, the installer /should /have an option to select between using 
InnoDB and MyISAM and I should be able to select MyISAM even if InnoDB 
is available.  Leave the user in control.