Re: replacing dbm_* with dba_*

On Sun, Jun 20, 1999 at 11:38:50AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Sascha Schumann wrote: > > > > > > > > Hmmmm.... since dbm_ does, then I think dropping dbm_ for dba_ > > > will cause compatibility problems. Some people make not even > > > be aware that they are using ndbm ala db mode. > > > > I'm not sure which interface DB1 uses. Maybe the code supports it > > by accident? :-) > > Well, configure is pretty aware that in many OSs, ndbm is actually > implemented in db1.x. It checks for dbm_open in -ldb for example > and looks for the db.h header file. > > The dba_ configure stuff kind of does that as well, except that > it requires that db1.x stuff have it's own directory structure > (for example, it looks for /usr/include/db1/ndbm.h, and only > then does it know that ndbm uses db1). Ok, we may need a bit of tuning there. If you want to add some configuration options, go ahead. > > > > Does not having a write-only mode make sense? That is RDWR without > > > CREAT? Again, dbm_ implements 'w' this way. > > > > Does having a write-only mode make sense? > > Not sure... People may be expecting a 'w' on a non-existant database > to fail. With the current dbm_open implementation it does at least. > With the dba_ implementation it doesn't. Yes, that's right. But while it's true that it does not do that currently, I don't feel like kicking out db.c completely. It does other weired things such as the .lck thing which dba doesn't. So, the big question is - shall dba become the official successor of dbm? If so, their behaviour should be as equal as possible. -- Regards, Sascha Schumann Consultant