Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openoffice.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGj3217gza7o_Q=rCF5u2KG6FdrN6_+4ggd2wQTQ4VCosWNdFw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAGj3214GixsBtNuS067Y4U2mpG72F4EBxXh1VG1teu4WAe8XPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<51525833.4060806@pitonyak.org>
	<CAMjW0Btk9=0Sgs-egsjtN2jfve6Uy5XEbh5XFYmqZpg5AxQsmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGj3217gza7o_Q=rCF5u2KG6FdrN6_+4ggd2wQTQ4VCosWNdFw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:30:14 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAK2iWdSpmmnur4GWU7a8Yh_T2nW8otzyCFbVAqZQ40V=w4U=Gw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
From: janI <jani@apache.org>
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01161d8e802e0d04d8ea8dd3

--089e01161d8e802e0d04d8ea8dd3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 27 March 2013 17:12, Kay Schenk <kay.schenk@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Guy Waterval <waterval.guy@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Hi Andrew,
> > Hi all,
> >
> > 2013/3/27 Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <andrew@pitonyak.org>
> >
> > >
> > > I like an embedded DB for those times that I desire a small DB for
> small
> > > data that is relational.  For larger data sets, the embedded DB is
> > > insufficient.
> > >
> >
> > Indeed, end users and a lot of little structures could take profit of a
> > little DB easy to use, ie associations, sport clubs, TPE, museums,
> schools,
> > restaurants, little hotels, storekeepers, etc. Moreover, you can
> transform
> > the weakpoint in a marketing argument : why wearing shoes 45 if my size
> is
> > 40?
> >
> > A+
> > --
> > gw
> >
>
> My opinion is that users and AOO would be better served if users chose and
> installed their own small DB (one that would support some typical
> connectivity -- ODBC, JDBC) instead of AOO supplying one with the product.
> Many such good small scale DBs exist. It just seems to me that no matter
> what we have/choose now as an embedded DB, and problems that may ensue with
> it, and therefore might require future replacement, is a continual
> problematic cycle we really don't need.
>
+1, but maybe we should recommend 2 one for really small scale and one for
larger db. That way we do not have the maintenance and we do not leave the
users standing in the rain.


>
> At this point, given that we don't really know what folks re doing with
> Base. I think it would be better to do a transitional move -- take out the
> embedded DB and therefore "Create new DB" option would go away.  Let the
> front-end stuff alone.
>
+1

>
> Naturally, we would have to investigate some export mechanisms for users,
> etc to preserve the data they may already have in ODB.
>
e.g. through calc, which whould be relatively easy.

rgds
Jan  I.

>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin."
>

--089e01161d8e802e0d04d8ea8dd3--