Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> Another point: modularization is nice and well, where appropriate. But
> here I don't see how it could help the user. Or do you expect users to
> plug in and out replication solutions like USB sticks? I think most
> users want to have *one* replication solution that works. Out of the
> box. Maybe they want one which can do sync as well as async replication,
> sure. But hooks don't give you that, nor do they make it any easier.
I, as a mostly-user, fully subscribe to that point of view. IMHO one
of the biggest mistakes mysql made were those "pluggable storage
managers". While all those different storage managers (innodb, bdb,
myisam, ...) _look_ interchangeable from an interface point of view
(You just specify which one to use when creating the table, right?),
they all have _different_ semantics. Just forgot to write "with innodb"
in _one_ of your table definitions, and transaction isolation goes
out of the window :-(.
I understand that different usecases need different replication
solutions - but I think "Hey, let's just make them plugins" is
not the way to go. It would work if all replication solutions
had _exactly_ the same semantics - but if they do, then what is
the point of all the different solutions anyway?
Just my 2 eurocents...
Greetings, Florian Pflug