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@xxxxxxxxx> 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. poc -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
