[cvsnt] Re: cvsnt status

[Oliver Giesen]

I suppose this wasn't intended to be sent in private, was it? I hope you 
don't mind me forwarding it here for further discussion. I haven't got 
much to say in reply however. Pity about the embedded Firebird...

Cheers,

Oliver
----	------------------
JID:	ogiesen at jabber.org
ICQ:	18777742
      (http://wwp.icq.com/18777742)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: tmh [mailto:tmh at nodomain.org]
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 3:22 PM
> To: ogware
> Subject: Re: [cvsnt] Re: cvsnt status
> 
> 
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:48:42 +0200, in support.cvsnt you wrote:
> 
> 
> >Hmm, judging by your commit comments and the new file names, 
> I thought you
> >were already using an extra layer of abstraction (probably 
> similar to the
> >way you already factored the protocol support out of the 
> main app?). Or did
> >I misinterpret that and you were really hard-wiring MSSQL? 
> Personally I
> >would like to see an MSSQL backend as it would fit well into 
> the rest of our
> >dev environment. Interbase/Firebird would be just as fine 
> though. IMHO the
> >best solution, as someone else already suggested IIRC, would 
> be if the
> >I/O-backend was completely factored out and thus 
> exchangeable in the form of
> >support libraries. This way people would even be able to add 
> their own
> >backend-support libraries.
> >
> It's factored out, sort of.  I'm not sure whether I'll keep 
> it the same though
> as it's a bit high level...  Mostly I've just proved it could 
> be done & got
> some idea of how hard it is.
> 
> The SQL layer will be completely transparent (no SQL in CVS 
> itself, for
> example).  However I need to work and release on a single 
> platform to start
> with... either MySQL or Firebird seem to fit the bill (not 
> looked at firebird
> yet but the prospect of not having to have a separate installation is
> tempting). 
> 
> Tony
> 
>