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

[Jeff Mitchell]

On Wednesday 03 October 2007, Greg Meyer wrote:
> 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'


I do this too, just posted about it.  I'm not sure if my post landed on this 
thread or another one though...