Allowing sharing a database (was Re: extragear/multimedia/amarok/src)

[Greg Meyer]

On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Tobias G. Pfeiffer wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 October 2007, 15:37, Bart Cerneels wrote:
> > 2007/10/2, Maximilian Kossick <mkossick at gmx.de>:
> > > Do we actually want to support sharing a database?  i know that we
> > > can't prevent our users from doing that if we continue to support mysql
> > > or postgres. We still have to decide which databases we are going to
> > > support in 2.0.
> >
> > (...)
> >
> > I wouldn't support mysql/progressql either for 2.0 or even ever,
> > certainly not on OSX and Windows. We just don't have enough control
> > over it. We are going to be swamped with bug reports already, let's
> > not add to the madness with another unknown factor in the equation.
>
> If there is no necessity to support multiple backends (with "everything
> with more than 10.000 tracks kills sqlite" or the like probably being
> a "necessity"), then you shouldn't do it. Especially because it gives you
> the

There are some rather large collections out there that use amarok specificallt 
because of mysql support.  I'm talking track totals of 20, 2=30, 50, 100,000 
tracks.  These collections choke every other media player, but amarok handles 
them quite well.  So, I guess you could go ahead and drop supprt, but if 
there is an easy way to leave it, I would say do it.

Also, it isn't such a strange use case to share a database.  I did it for 
awhile with mysql and it worked quite well.  No matter which computer I was 
using to playback, home, work, laptop my stats would get updated.  Nice.  I 
recently rebuilt my computer and had to return to windows for my laptop for 
work reasons, but I think more than a few people do this.

Just sayin'

-- 
Greg