On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 2:44 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I don't mean to start a war here or put any work down. However, I just
> needed some clarification/direction into which way the data stores
> work is going.
> Since Postgres does allow for features such
On Feb 20, 2008, at 10:55 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian,
Thanks for the great feedback.
I understand your point about the postmodern performance issue.
Hopefully that is something that could be overcome in the future.
Probably not entirely. Especially if you're talking over a socket
Ian,
Thanks for the great feedback.
I understand your point about the postmodern performance issue.
Hopefully that is something that could be overcome in the future.
I do happen to prefer BDB for some reason and I like the whole
elephant system in general for the reasons you mention and ot
I doubt that Elephant on postmodern is going to be faster than using
CL-SQL to do direct ORM against Postgresql. Despite the great work
that Henrik and others have done with Postmodern, there are too many
layers of abstraction in the architecture to overcome. The real point
of using Eleph
Well, this is certainly interesting, since this would allow me to
decouple the storage system from the lisp environment allowing the
possibility of setting up a cluster of lisp machines to handle
application logic. Isn't there a way to achieve this on BDB?
We prefer to deploy our systems on
On Feb 20, 2008, at 8:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I don't mean to start a war here or put any work down. However, I
just needed some clarification/direction into which way the data
stores work is going.
One challenge is that the current implementation is setup to only work
