(Nick Reinking <nick(a)twoevils.org>)g>):
Speaking of maximum performance... I have a question concerning our
implementation. What will be more important in the future, clean and
efficient code, or backwards compatibility? Especially when you
consider the reverse_timestamp hacks everywhere that won't be needed in
MySQL4 (or PostgreSQL), I would think that we should just drop MySQL3
support (especially considering that it is easy to upgrade, and nobody
will be using it in a year or two). But, maybe I'm crazy - anybody else
have any comments?
Depends on what you want compatibility with. The internal workings
of the code are completely fair game as far as I'm concerned. MySQL 4
will get rid of the reverse-timestamp hack, and if we want to use
Postgres or something else, we can. The "public interface" to the
wiki is the URLs of various pages. Those should change as little as
possible. But how they are implemented under the scenes is not a
"compatibility" issue at all--hell, the whole thing might be replaced
with Java servlets and an object database for all I care.
That's the whole point of client-server separation after all--how the
server does its job is none of the client's business, only the fact
that it does, in fact, meet its obligations. That's what I'm writing
the test suite for.
--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee(a)piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC