Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact db-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list db@apache.org Received: (qmail 92374 invoked from network); 7 May 2002 13:39:34 -0000 Received: from smtp012.mail.yahoo.com (216.136.173.32) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 7 May 2002 13:39:34 -0000 Received: from host-54.valtech.co.uk (HELO yahoo.com) (paul?hammant@195.12.228.54 with plain) by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 May 2002 13:39:35 -0000 Message-ID: <3CD7D954.5020504@yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 14:40:36 +0100 From: Paul Hammant User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0rc1) Gecko/20020417 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: db@apache.org Subject: Re: test References: <1020771059.660.12.camel@enki> <3CD7D20B.1020308@apache.org> <3CD7D60B.50101@yahoo.com> <3CD7D7AD.9040701@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Andrew, > 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. You're spready FUD dude if you are saying there is a performance cost to Java... ;-) -ph