On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 07:54 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > 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@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. > > > > > > > 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. I plead guilty to imprecision in the interests of rhetoric. However I'm sure you can imagine N different sets which largely but not completely overlap with each other. That's all I'm trying to say here. 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
