Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
"W. E. Perry" wrote: > > Jonathan Borden wrote: > > > alternatively, one could wrap the filesystem in a DOM/XPath accessor and let > > the filesystem code perform the access checks for you. I think it would take > > less code to wrap the filesystem *BUT* one could always munge Xerces to > > provide ACL behavior. > > > > My gut feeling is that using a filesystem designed for lots of small files > > will give the proper level of concurrency and access control. Which do y'all > > think would be the most efficient? > > IMHO, this will have to be a DBMS, not simply a filesystem. The underlying data > store (which for many reasons should be native XML) will require an enclosing > engine to: <...> Add to this transactional integrity, referential intergrity and caching that most RDBMSs (with the notable exception of MySQL, which in some ppl's oppinion is an SQL wrapper around a filesystem) provide for free. -- K. Ari Krupnikov DBDOM - bridging XML and relational databases http://www.iter.co.il
|
