Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Fsyncers and curveballs (the Firefox 3 fsync() problem)Fsyncers and curveballs (the Firefox 3 fsync() problem)Posted May 27, 2008 16:19 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333)In reply to: Fsyncers and curveballs (the Firefox 3 fsync() problem) by bojan Parent article: Fsyncers and curveballs (the Firefox 3 fsync() problem)
It's very good that the problem is found and it's getting fixed. It would probably help a whole of of people and different applications. It's still probably very silly to use a SQL database to store bookmarks, even if it's a very light database engine. Seems like a bunch of people need to be smacked by a cluebat that a lightly formatted flat text file is superior (simplier/faster) to a SQL database for most things that people need a database for... (ie: storing small amounts of editable data in a file on a filesystem) Personally I liked the bookmarks.html. Makes it very easy to backup my bookmarks and use them with/in other programs. Ever used bookmarks.html as a home page?
(Log in to post comments)
Fsyncers and curveballs (the Firefox 3 fsync() problem) Posted May 27, 2008 21:19 UTC (Tue) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link] The real need for a database isn't bookmarks, it's history.
Fsyncers and curveballs (the Firefox 3 fsync() problem) Posted May 28, 2008 9:01 UTC (Wed) by IkeTo (subscriber, #2122) [Link] > The real need for a database isn't bookmarks, it's history. The real need for a database isn't history either. It is extensions. You can have a custom format for history so that given an URL you know whether it is in it or not, and you can list all of them in the order of time. Easy. But extension is different. You don't really know what they need, because each of them need different thing. So your only option is to ship something really generic, in other words, database. If they have to ship a database anyway, I don't see any reason they are not merging bookmarks and history into the same framework.
|
|||||||||||||