Re: Goal #6 : Rating - 326561 Test/Review/Comment

On 24/10/06, John Stowers <john.stowers.lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > I know that I'm a bit late, but I've been real hard pressed with studies...
> >
> > If the major problem is the database change, then I think that the
> > time should be taken to reconsider the other database problems, and to
> > make a revised database forward- compatible with future versions.
> > Might I propose this:
> >
> > A new database format that contains the needed fields for the Rating
> > patch, and also a few as-yet unneeded fields. I figure that four ints,
> > four varchars, and two text fields should get us past the next four or
> > five database change requirements that future patches may need. Is
> > there any downside to having these new redundant, as-yet unused
> > fields?
>
> I dont think that this approach is solving the problem, nor is it
> planning intelligently for the future. While the approach may work, I
> think that moving feature X as field Y into the database *each time*
> something new is added is not very clean.

The idea is to give F-Spot the flexibility to add new features without
having to worry about a new database format. Remember, it's still beta
software, and being developed rather quickly.

Dotan Cohen

http://what-is-what.com/what_is/drm.html
http://technology-sleuth.com/short_answer/why_are_internet_greeting_cards_dangerous.html