Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 15:02 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan
> <pocallaghan(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 08:55 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
>>
>>> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> My reading was that he worried about *non-KDE* apps doing similar things
>>>> without any interaction with Akonadi.
>>>>
>>>> So there are now two independant databases, one in KDE and one in Gnome.
>>>> Those of us who use a mixture of apps are running both of them.
>>>>
>>> If it matters, akonadi was designed to be DE-independent, with no kde
>>> dependencies (other than qt).
>>>
>> Is this because it uses qt to talk to the other KDE apps? Just curious.
>>
>> More to the point, my comment isn't about the relative merits of the
>> various technologies. It's more in the sense that choice can carry costs
>> which we may not always be aware of.
>>
> What cost are you considering there? The extra secondary storage bits
> used by an additional database? I do not believe that simply having a
> multiple databases increases MySQLs load.
>
That's not what I meant. There is a complexity cost in having N
subsystems, each of which implements 90% of the funcionality of the
other N-1, but a different 90%. That complexity cost can translate to a
stability cost and a security cost. There's also a cost in the effort
required to create and maintain these systems, not to mention keeping
them up to date on every host that uses them.
You lost me with this phrase....
"each of which implements 90% of the functionality of the other N-1,
but a different 90%"
"each of which implements 90% of the functionality of the other N-1"
parses in my mind as each one does pretty much the same as all the
others. But they you say "but a different 90%" and that causes my mind
to enter an infinite loop.
--
Magic is always the best solution -- especially reliable magic.
Mei-Mei.Greshko(a)greshko.com
http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=cCSz_koUhSg