Re^2: Repetitive File I/O vs. Memory Caching

I think I'm agreeing with most of what you've said... it makes sense to me anyhow. The only part I don't like is the storing of these files in a database. Yes I could do it, but I always hear people who do such things grumbling later on due to editting quirks. These files will be editted once in a while and it is so much easier to open a file in your favorite editor and make changes than to update a database table. On the other hand, just for fun, I think I am going to create a simple script that will be a database editor... sounds like fun :)

Comment on Re^2: Repetitive File I/O vs. Memory Caching

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re^2: Repetitive File I/O vs. Memory Caching by graff (Chancellor) on Mar 28, 2004 at 06:28 UTC
You are quite right about the "grumbling" -- putting any sort of free-form text content into a database will tend to create a barrier for people who need to maintain and update that content. If there isn't a simple procedure in place to do that, it's a killer. Even when there is a "simple" procedure in place, the problem can be that it's the only procedure available. Editing text files and storing/updating them on disk really has become analogous to writing on paper: any number of utensils can be used, from the pencil stub invariably found on the floor to the $250 Cartier Fountain Pen. But the typical approach to maintaining text fields in a database is more like the old days of Ma Bell: this is the telephone that you get, it's black, you don't actually own it, and there's nothing you can do to change how it works. Maybe a better approach would be to perfect a system for maintaining the database by "importing" from all these little files -- let the files be updated by whatever means are considered suitable, then just fold the new version into the database by some simple process, about which the content authors are blissfully ignorant.	[reply]
Re: Re^2: Repetitive File I/O vs. Memory Caching by davido (Cardinal) on Mar 28, 2004 at 06:09 UTC
There's nothing preventing you from creating a small script that replaces a current page stored in a database with a newly edited version. That seems so trivial that it shouldn't be a factor discouraging you from using a database. All the "big" sites can't be completely off track. Dave	[reply]