CLI scripts on the server

Heiko W.Rupp hrupp at redhat.com
Mon Jan 10 08:51:23 UTC 2011


Am 06.01.2011 um 18:34 schrieb John Mazzitelli:
> a) scripts are typically small - rarely more than several K of text. 
> Thus we wouldn't be putting any additional space requirements on the 
> data store (we wouldn't need to add additional capacity just to support 

Even if this is small and seldom queried, it puts more and more stuff in the
db. DB is relative expensive compared to other ways of storing data.

> b) script text itself would not usually need to be queryable - so having 
> it in a CLOB vs. VARCHAR shouldn't be an issue. No other table would 
> need to have a relational constraint on this LOB column.

And LOB columns (less for CLOB) can't easily just be edited.
This always means export, edit, import.
And (probably not an issue here) just consider that some serialized
datatype changes and for a new version of library X can't be read again.

> 
> and the more pressing reason:
> 
> c) storing it on the file system would introduce a new requirement we'd 
> have to place on the server installations - users would now be required 
> to install RHQ Servers on machines that have access to the same 
> filesystem (via NFS or some other distributed file system). We do not 


Or put that stuff on a small apache httpd which may be present for load balancing
reasons anyway.

I understand your arguments and they are very valid, but I do not think that
increasing our db-boundness more is always the right solution.

Also I think letting the user use his favorite editor to write the JavaScript is a
better use of time, than us having to write such an editor for the RHQ-UI.

  Heiko

-- 
Reg. Adresse: Red Hat GmbH, Otto-Hahn-Strasse 20, 85609 Dornach bei München
Handelsregister: Amtsgericht München HRB 153243
Geschaeftsführer: Brendan Lane, Charlie Peters, Michael Cunningham, Charles Cachera



More information about the rhq-devel mailing list