On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 21:08 +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote: > # tedd@xxxxxxxxxxxx / 2007-03-01 12:46:09 -0500: > > At 10:01 AM -0500 3/1/07, markw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > >In this discussion I have stated reasons why it is a bad idea. No one has > > >come up with a counter point which can only be served by a database and > > >thus proves me wrong. I think that says something. > > > > > > Contradiction is not a sign of falsity, nor the lack of contradiction > > a sign of truth. > > > > I think "no comment" says that discussing this issue has problems. > > > > For example, this has been subject of many flame wars before and I'm > > sure that many just don't care to join in. If you want to claim > > something absurd, then who are they to correct you? And why should > > they care? > > Exactly, ted. markw is so obviously right, and he's presented the > points so well, there's nothing to add, really. but since you asked: > yeah, he's right. I'm going to skip his response to my previous comments and just add the following to this post: To follow up with Ted, nobody said using the filesystem is bad, what many of us are saying is that the database is not necessarily bad either. It really depends on what you're doing and how you choose to address the problem with all of your knowledge. Many of us here are quite aware of the different technologies available to access shared binary data across some kind of network etc. But, given time constraints, budget constraints, and all manner of personal preference and training and ingenuity, we CHOOSE to use one solution over the other for any given problem space. So far Mark has almost entirely focused on the performance and "filesystems were made to do that" argument... Who the hell cares??! If people stopped trying to use old ideas to solve novel problems then innovation and ingenuity would go out the window... and if that happens, then nothing advances, nothing is doscovered, we live a life of boring old filesystems that just do "files". Why CAN'T a database be used as a filesystem? Mark said himself that filesystems pretty much are databases.. why limit them to just doing what they do now? Why can't they do more? Why can't they become more like fully fledged queryable databases? Why does Mark think he's more right than the many people on this list? What evidence has he given that says filesystems are ALWAYS, IRREFUTABLY the best option? He cannot, anything he argues in favour of the irrefutability of his argument only needs one counter example. Unlike our argument, he must prove the all encompassing nature of his solution space. We only need to prove a single example. The onus is on Mark to prove his argument is irrefutable, not on us to prove that database are always better, because we have never made that claim. I now await the book from Mark describing how filesystem storage for every single binary storage problem ever encountered and ever to be encountered is the solution. Cheers, Rob. -- .------------------------------------------------------------. | InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com | :------------------------------------------------------------: | An application and templating framework for PHP. Boasting | | a powerful, scalable system for accessing system services | | such as forms, properties, sessions, and caches. InterJinn | | also provides an extremely flexible architecture for | | creating re-usable components quickly and easily. | `------------------------------------------------------------' -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
