db-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrew C. Oliver" <acoli...@apache.org>
Subject Re: test
Date Tue, 07 May 2002 13:33:33 GMT
My thoughts are even more radical.  I'm thinking that THE OODB should 
probably be written in a higher performance *gasp, shock, horror* than 
Java would permit.  I'm thinking the HTTPD of OODBs..  It should 
probably be written in C.



Paul Hammant wrote:

> Andrew,
>> But through collaboration among them in a larger community they could 
>> be better.  furthermore the protential for widespread acceptance of 
>> an Apache db especially if it were named "db" are profound, not that 
>> it should be a goal but the means to an ends.  Such acceptance would 
>> draw a pretty large community.  But again, I feel it should be an 
>> OODB which is an area sorely in need of development.  It should be a 
>> grandeous undertaking, better if one exists, but if not...*shrug* --  
>> Everyone and his brother makes a RDBMS
> A few of us had started a RDBMS as part of the Avalon-apps project.  
> It is suspended for the mo while we concentrate on sexier things (EOB 
> and others) but we will come back to it.  What it offered that some 
> others did not :
> 1) Full interface / impl separated design for Table Row etc.
> 2) Avalon-Phoenix using in that blocks (components)
> 3) JDBC compatible with JDK 1.3 & 1.4
> 4) Multiple implementations of all blocks  - e.g. ->
>  - non persisting store & file system persisting store
>  - Where-clause processors using Rhino or BCEL for real strongly typed 
> rows and queries.
> 5) SQL support plus (insane as it seems) LXSQL (an xmlized form of SQL 
> for parsing without yacc)
> 6) Multiple transports between client and server (one using AltRMI), 
> SOAP transport would be easy (Glue).
> It is not an OODBMS though.  It is called AvalonDB not ApacheDB as it 
> is not sancioned as a sub-project officially.
> Regards,
> - Paul H

View raw message