Re: GNOME DB's (Re: dbus and GNOME 2.8)

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>]

On Mon, 2004-04-05 at 23:01 -0700, Vladimir Vukicevic wrote:
> Bob Smith wrote:
> 
> > A few comments on the DB topic.
> > 
> > 1. It was commented that a DB's too heavy for things like egg-recent.
> > Alone, that might be true. But how many places could a database come in
> > handy? If used all over, it could provide great features, polish, and
> > speed up development time.
> 
> I agree; I think the question is how much of a RDBMS does the desktop 
> need.  Specifically, stored procedures are the main incompatible 
> sticking point between different databases; things like triggers and 
> notifications can (hopefully) be abstracted away by gnome-db.
> 
yes, this is planned indeed.

> What things would people like to do with a desktop database?
>
the obvious cases are evolution to store its contacts, calendar data,
planner for its projects, preferences (in place of GConf?).

>   If the 
> goal is to move all the current apps' private databases into a global 
> desktop database, the requirements on the database itself are going to 
> be quite different than if it's just used for small bits of data (like 
> recently opened files).  For example, does rhythmbox start storing its 
> music collection information in the database with a common format that 
> muine can use as well?  Do you start putting, say, selected EXIF image 
> data into the database, that fSpot, Nautilus, the file-open dialog box, 
> etc. can all reference?  Does Evolution start storing address, email, 
> and todo items in the database?  Or is it only for "small" things, like 
> recently-used data, and maybe bookmarks?
> 
if it's only for small things like the two examples you mention, I think
it does not justify having a RDBMS. If we ever decide to use one, we
should really use it, for all things you mentioned above and many more
things.

> As far as the abstraction layer goes, it seems that Storage would be the 
> natural interface for applications that wish to access the desktop 
> database -- not gnome-db.  Thus, the burden of database support would 
> fall on Gnome Storage (which in turn could use gnome-db), and the 
> application writer can deal with a higher level interface.
> 
that sounds pretty good, since having all applications have to deal with
a DB API just for storing simple stuff sounds overkill. A high level
interface seems the best way.

cheers