[Chandler-dev] [Sum] The Great Architecture Discussion of 2007

Grant Baillie grant at osafoundation.org
Wed Oct 10 07:18:11 PDT 2007

On 9 Oct, 2007, at 17:27, Andi Vajda wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Grant Baillie wrote:
>>>> 4. implementing a generic database inside another generic database
>>> That was the goal, originally. Not to have a hard compiled app  
>>> against a hard compiled relational schema. If Chandler is to  
>>> become a hard compiled application with a static schema, where  
>>> all data types have to be determined in advance, then of course,  
>>> the chandler repository is overkill and can be replaced by some  
>>> specifically optimized, domain-specific, schema.
>> I'm confused: How is what we have (where you have to throw out  
>> your data any time the schema at either of 2 levels changes)  
>> different from the "hard compiled app against a hard compiled  
>> relational schema"? (Apart from the word "relational").
> Not throw out. Migrate to a new schema. Just like in a relational  
> database.
> If you change the low-level layout (format), core schema, or app  
> schema (table layout) someone needs to migrate the data. It might  
> be apparently easier in a relational schema but not so once you've  
> carefully optimized it and duplicated stuff left and right to get  
> the desired performance. Essentially, it becomes harder once the  
> 1-1 correspondance between programmer's view (kind/class) and SQL  
> table is broken.

I'm not saying you want a relational db because it's easier to  
migrate. I'm saying that, from a practical perspective, there is no  
difference between your "hard compiled" system and what we have  
today. Maybe I'm missing the point, though: What are you saying is  
different between the two?


More information about the chandler-dev mailing list