[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: KDE 4.2 requires local MySQL Server



On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 07:54 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 15:02 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> >   
> >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan
> >> <pocallaghan gmail com> wrote:
> >>     
> >>> On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 08:55 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> >>>       
> >>>> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>         
> >>>>> My reading was that he worried about *non-KDE* apps doing similar things
> >>>>> without any interaction with Akonadi.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So there are now two independant databases, one in KDE and one in Gnome.
> >>>>> Those of us who use a mixture of apps are running both of them.
> >>>>>           
> >>>> If it matters, akonadi was designed to be DE-independent, with no kde
> >>>> dependencies (other than qt).
> >>>>         
> >>> Is this because it uses qt to talk to the other KDE apps? Just curious.
> >>>
> >>> More to the point, my comment isn't about the relative merits of the
> >>> various technologies. It's more in the sense that choice can carry costs
> >>> which we may not always be aware of.
> >>>       
> >> What cost are you considering there? The extra secondary storage bits
> >> used by an additional database? I do not believe that simply having a
> >> multiple databases increases MySQLs load.
> >>     
> >
> > That's not what I meant. There is a complexity cost in having N
> > subsystems, each of which implements 90% of the funcionality of the
> > other N-1, but a different 90%. That complexity cost can translate to a
> > stability cost and a security cost. There's also a cost in the effort
> > required to create and maintain these systems, not to mention keeping
> > them up to date on every host that uses them.
> >
> >
> >   
> You lost me with this phrase....
> 
> "each of which implements 90% of the  functionality of the other N-1,
> but a different 90%"
> 
> "each of which implements 90% of the functionality of the other N-1"
> parses in my mind as each one does pretty much the same as all the
> others.  But they you say "but a different 90%" and that causes my mind
> to enter an infinite loop. 

I plead guilty to imprecision in the interests of rhetoric. However I'm
sure you can imagine N different sets which largely but not completely
overlap with each other. That's all I'm trying to say here.

poc


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]