Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not sure I like the model of "one directory per transaction."
> After a while, especially with a busy set of accounts, this can
> amount to thousands (or in the case of a business, even millions) of
> transactions. It just doesn't scale very well.
As others have pointed out, this doesn't have to be the case. Right
now ext2 just isn't goot with this situation. Of course, as Linas
later points out, asking people to change their filesystem in order to
run an app is at least as bad as forcing them to become SQL admins.
> Perhaps you could have a dbm per account? Or, better yet, use an
> SQL backend with transaction support...
If we had something like a reliable "SQL-lite" library that would
allow the user to store their data in their own home directory,
without running all kinds of daemons, adding system users, and
learning a bunch of other admin stuff, I'd be happy to use that as the
back end. Then for larger-scale systems the upgrade path to something
heavier duty on the back end should be somewhat natural.
--
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930
--
Gnucash Developer's List
To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
