This question is probably more for DM,ããIs it possible to load something like jssqlite.dll from the JSLibs collection: ãhttp://code.google.com/p/jslibs/ããin synchronet? The command is LoadModule, however that does not seem to beãavailable in whatever implementation/version of spidermonkey that is builtãinto synch.ããThe idea would be to write door games in JS and use SQLLite as a backend forãdata storage.ããPossible?ããThanks!ãã-Olivierãã---ã þ Synchronet þ The Valley BBS | valley.darktech.org | Bulkley Valley, Smithers BCã

Re: JSLibsã By: The_Vipah to All on Tue Oct 12 2010 06:42 pmãã > This question is probably more for DM,ã >ã > Is it possible to load something like jssqlite.dll from the JSLibsã > collection: http://code.google.com/p/jslibs/ã >ã > in synchronet? The command is LoadModule, however that does not seem to beã > available in whatever implementation/version of spidermonkey that is builtã > into synch.ã >ã > The idea would be to write door games in JS and use SQLLite as a backendã > for data storage.ã >ã > Possible?ããNo, but there is a mod out there for Synchronet which integrates sqlite intoãSynchronet and makes it available for JS scripts. Try searching through olderãDOVE-Net messages for announcement message from that mod's author about it.ãã digital manããSnapple "Real Fact" #6:ãA honey bee can fly at 15mph.ã---ã þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.netã

El 12/10/10 22:42, The_Vipah escribió:ã> This question is probably more for DM,ã>ã> Is it possible to load something like jssqlite.dll from the JSLibs collection:ã> http://code.google.com/p/jslibs/ã>ã> in synchronet? The command is LoadModule, however that does not seem to beã> available in whatever implementation/version of spidermonkey that is builtã> into synch.ã>ã> The idea would be to write door games in JS and use SQLLite as a backend forã> data storage.ã>ã> Possible?ã>ã> Thanks!ã>ã> -Olivierã>ã> ---ã> þ Synchronet þ The Valley BBS | valley.darktech.org | Bulkley Valley, Smithers BCãi was work few age ago on add sqlite support to the sbbs code. its not ãgreat thin but it work fine.ãhttp://bbs.docksud.com.ar/~ragnarok/syncããthis out-off-sync with the actual code, but its easy to port to latest cvsããã-- ãDock Sud BBSã(quedamos pocos y nos conocemos)ãtelnet://bbs.docksud.com.arãhttp://bbs.docksud.com.arãã---ã þ Synchronet þ Dock Sud BBS TLD 24 HS - http://www.docksud.com.ar - telnet://bbs.docksud.com.arã

Is it possible to load something like jssqlite.dll from the JSLibsã > > collection: http://code.google.com/p/jslibs/ã > >ã > > in synchronet? The command is LoadModule, however that does not seem to bã > > available in whatever implementation/version of spidermonkey that is builtã > > into synch.ã > >ã > > The idea would be to write door games in JS and use SQLLite as a backend fã > > data storage.ã > >ã > i was work few age ago on add sqlite support to the sbbs code. its not greatã > thin but it work fine.ã > http://bbs.docksud.com.ar/~ragnarok/syncã > ã > this out-off-sync with the actual code, but its easy to port to latest cvsããI would love to have SQLite abilities. This would make script development aãton more easier and faster to do bigger projects.ãI was working on a Javascript menu system that was similar to OBV/2 in how youãcreate them. Got pretty far but the choking point is trying to manipulateãstupid menu files. Just grinds everything to a halt.ãBut on top of that I would love to be able to write a shopping cart program andãsell my software projects using Synchronet's webserver.ãSynch has all the user-community site features and you could design a websiteãthat could really tailor access options, for downloads for example, would beãridiculously easy. The thing that truly is the safety break for development ofãJS developers on Sync is the lack of powerful SQL database tools which is theãnorm for almost all scripters today.ãI can understand Synch core developers not wanting to embrace the idea ofãtrying to build client extensions for every possible SQL server out there andãthe headache that goes along with maintaining the client extenders. ãBut honestly I feel SQLite3 really fits the bill for Synch and is parallel toãthe spirit of Synchronet.ãI was looking at maintaining a source code fork and building the extenderãmyself although I really don't have time for such a project with all my otherãprojects. But there is less to wrap on SQLite than there is on a C socket. IfãI was the only one whining about SQLite I probably would write it quietly in myãown little corner. But I'm going to have to throw my 2 cents in now that I seeãits been a topic on DOVE-Net.ãSeriously this would be a major boon for the folks out there writing scriptsãand currently is one of the major hangups for scripting on Synch.ãã---ã þ Synchronet þ Darkest Hour BBS - thedhbbs.comã

Re: Re: JSLibsã By: Badopcode to Ragnarok on Thu Feb 23 2012 07:13:54ããHi Badopcode,ãã > Seriously this would be a major boon for the folks out there writing scriptsã > and currently is one of the major hangups for scripting on Synch.ããPossibly.ããI have written doors in C# which talk with an MS SQL Server cluster. It's notãdifficult, with a good API around databases, which .NET provides. ECMAScriptãwill be trickier.ããI'm interested, let me know if you feel like taking this on, I'd be happy toãhelp where I can.ããRegards,ãã art@fatcatsbbsdotcom ãã"Laddie, every woman has her own charm. You just have to knowã where to look for it."ã -- Scotty to Riker in ST:TNG "Relics"ãã---ã þ Synchronet þ fatcats bbs - fatcatsbbs.comã

Re: Re: JSLibsã By: Badopcode to Ragnarok on Thu Feb 23 2012 07:13 amãã > I would love to have SQLite abilities. This would make script developmentã > a ton more easier and faster to do bigger projects.ããI have some work on adding ODBC support to Synchronet. I think that marrying a
specific engine would be a mistake - expecially one as purposefully weak as SQLite.ãã---ãhttp://DuckDuckGo.com/ a better search engine that respects your privacy.ã þ Synchronet þ My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)ã

I would love to have SQLite abilities. This would make script developmenã > > a ton more easier and faster to do bigger projects.ã > ã > I have some work on adding ODBC support to Synchronet. I think that marryinã > a specific engine would be a mistake - expecially one as purposefully weak aã > SQLite.ããODBC would be very cool. But SQLite is not weak and a lot lower over head thanãrunning a SQL server on the same server that your applications are running on.ã As long as there is a single server scenario SQLite is a very practicalãalternative.ãIf Synch was to adopt a ODBC model it would make the most sense if Synch's dbãstuff got stored via ODBC instead local binary packed files.ãThat would go a long ways into making Synch a enterprise class super daemon. Iãnever got the feeling that that was the direction of Synch. But I wouldãapplaud this direction as Synch naturally does social networking which is aãmajor demand of business websites now days.ãBut on the downside to ODBC is that there is a level of complication to settingãup ODBC drivers. On Windows its fairly simple and can be a step-by-step withãscreenshots. ODBC on Linux can sometimes be hellish.ãProbably the best tactic to eliminating a flood of "How do I setup ODBC?"ãquestions in the forums would be to setup ODBC as a build directive and on theãprecompiled distributions only compile the packed binary configs.ãMy thinking was just a SQLite interface that extends the Javascript engine asãan alternative to regular file IO routines. ODBC for just the Javascriptãengine would be a bit overkill. IMHOãã---ã þ Synchronet þ Darkest Hour BBS - thedhbbs.comã

Re: Re: JSLibsã By: Badopcode to Deuce on Sun Feb 26 2012 03:16 pmãã > ODBC would be very cool. But SQLite is not weak and a lot lower over headã > than running a SQL server on the same server that your applications areã > running on.ããSorry, I'm used to "real" DF servers. SQLite is indeed weak, but that's what
it's trying for, so it's fine.ãã > If Synch was to adopt a ODBC model it would make the most sense if Synch'sã > db stuff got stored via ODBC instead local binary packed files.ããNot really. Just because something *can* do a specific thing doesn't mean it
makes sense to. Currently you can run Synchronet without setting up a DB server. Were Synchronet to reply on ODBC, that would no longer be the case... and that would be almost the only benefit.ãã > That would go a long ways into making Synch a enterprise class superã > daemon. I never got the feeling that that was the direction of Synch. Butã > I would applaud this direction as Synch naturally does social networkingã > which is a major demand of business websites now days.ããThere is a *lot* of things preventing Synchronet from being an enterprise classãsuper daemon. Mostly it's just not designed for scalability. The data storage
is just one tiny part of this issue.ãã > But on the downside to ODBC is that there is a level of complication toã > setting up ODBC drivers. On Windows its fairly simple and can be aã > step-by-step with screenshots. ODBC on Linux can sometimes be hellish.ããWhich is a good reason for Synchronet not to rely on an ODBC driver.ãã > My thinking was just a SQLite interface that extends the Javascript engineã > as an alternative to regular file IO routines. ODBC for just theã > Javascript engine would be a bit overkill. IMHOããI think writing custom SQL bindings for the JS engine and *only* supporting
SQLite would be underkill. If we were going to pick a single DB to support, I would likely choose PostgreSQL.ãã---ãhttp://DuckDuckGo.com/ a better search engine that respects your privacy.ã þ Synchronet þ My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)ã

Wow! Not the type of response I expected. Didn't mean to piss you off. Iãmean I have no problem with a debate. Or even a project leader telling me noãbecause I say no... but being blasted with a cynical circular logicãexplanation like I'm a overly excited child... not cool.ãWell this definitely curbs my enthusiasm.ããã > Re: Re: JSLibsã > By: Badopcode to Deuce on Sun Feb 26 2012 03:16 pmã > ã > > ODBC would be very cool. But SQLite is not weak and a lot lower overã > > head than running a SQL server on the same server that your applicationsã > > are running on.ã > ã > Sorry, I'm used to "real" DF servers. SQLite is indeed weak, but that'sã > what it's trying for, so it's fine.ã > ã > > If Synch was to adopt a ODBC model it would make the most sense ifã > > Synch's db stuff got stored via ODBC instead local binary packed files.ã > ã > Not really. Just because something *can* do a specific thing doesn't meanã > it makes sense to. Currently you can run Synchronet without setting up aã > DB server. Were Synchronet to reply on ODBC, that would no longer be theã > case... and that would be almost the only benefit.ã > ã > > That would go a long ways into making Synch a enterprise class superã > > daemon. I never got the feeling that that was the direction of Synch.ã > > But I would applaud this direction as Synch naturally does socialã > > networking which is a major demand of business websites now days.ã > ã > There is a *lot* of things preventing Synchronet from being an enterpriseã > class super daemon. Mostly it's just not designed for scalability. Theã > data storage is just one tiny part of this issue.ã > ã > > But on the downside to ODBC is that there is a level of complication toã > > setting up ODBC drivers. On Windows its fairly simple and can be aã > > step-by-step with screenshots. ODBC on Linux can sometimes be hellish.ã > ã > Which is a good reason for Synchronet not to rely on an ODBC driver.ã > ã > > My thinking was just a SQLite interface that extends the Javascriptã > > engine as an alternative to regular file IO routines. ODBC for just theã > > Javascript engine would be a bit overkill. IMHOã > ã > I think writing custom SQL bindings for the JS engine and *only* supportingã > SQLite would be underkill. If we were going to pick a single DB toã > support, I would likely choose PostgreSQL.ã > ã > ---ã > http://DuckDuckGo.com/ a better search engine that respects your privacy.ã > þ Synchronet þ My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)ãã---ã þ Synchronet þ Darkest Hour BBS - thedhbbs.comã

Re-reading this and maybe you didn't mean it as a slam. ãBut seriously you could have just said you don't like SQLite and its notãsomething your interested in pursuing. Maybe spared some hard feelings.ãThe impression you left me is you would only want to add connectivity to aã"real" SQL service that is enterprise class. But won't because Synchronetãisn't enterprise class and by your own definitions not a "real" server. Toãme, Synchronet is a "real" light weight but powerful social network server.ãSQLite is no different than doing everything by hand with binary packed filesãexcept your not doing the dirty foot work of writing query code.ãBut the most important thing is... you just don't like it and that's fine.ãIt's your time on this project and I can totally appreciate the fact that youãdon't want to mess with stuff that you don't like with your time.ãI say nothing but praises about you, DM and all the other great people puttingãtheir precious time and talents into Synchronet. You guys rock. Truly.ãThat's why I was so shocked.ãI don't know, maybe you guys get bombarded with whines and people that won'tãdrop crap. I am a developer as well and have been through that myself. So Iãknow how it goes. All you need is one bad day and yet one more douchebagãwhining for you to do something you could care less about and its postal time.ã I'm sorry and apologize if I was that douchebag that touched you off. In noãway was I trying to demand and was totally with the utmost respect andãhumbleness. But I could see how maybe my messages could get interpreted as meãtrying to drive marching orders.ããAt any rate... I can perfectly add the SQLite3 extension myself and won'tãbother you guys with it. I have fully done my homework on Synch JS andãSQLite3 and know exactly how to approach the matter. The only downside isãthat I am not interested in trying to maintain a forked set of build filesãparallel to your guys CVS head or chase bugs outside of what I run intoãpersonally. So I won't release my code into the wild as it will mean having toãanswer whining and crying myself. That's what I was avoiding and can't blameãyou for not wanting to deal with that over something your don't even like.ããAgain I apologize if I came off sounding like I was demanding slave labor fromãyou guys. That is not what I was trying to convey at all.ããã > Wow! Not the type of response I expected. Didn't mean to piss you off. Iã > mean I have no problem with a debate. Or even a project leader telling meã > no because I say no... but being blasted with a cynical circular logicã > explanation like I'm a overly excited child... not cool.ã > Well this definitely curbs my enthusiasm.ã > ã > ã > > Re: Re: JSLibsã > > By: Badopcode to Deuce on Sun Feb 26 2012 03:16 pmã > > ã > > > ODBC would be very cool. But SQLite is not weak and a lot lower overã > > > head than running a SQL server on the same server that yourã > > > applications are running on.ã > > ã > > Sorry, I'm used to "real" DF servers. SQLite is indeed weak, but that'sã > > what it's trying for, so it's fine.ã > > ã > > > If Synch was to adopt a ODBC model it would make the most sense ifã > > > Synch's db stuff got stored via ODBC instead local binary packedã > > > files.ã > > ã > > Not really. Just because something *can* do a specific thing doesn'tã > > mean it makes sense to. Currently you can run Synchronet withoutã > > setting up a DB server. Were Synchronet to reply on ODBC, that would noã > > longer be the case... and that would be almost the only benefit.ã > > ã > > > That would go a long ways into making Synch a enterprise class superã > > > daemon. I never got the feeling that that was the direction ofã > > > Synch. But I would applaud this direction as Synch naturally doesã > > > social networking which is a major demand of business websites nowã > > > days.ã > > ã > > There is a *lot* of things preventing Synchronet from being anã > > enterprise class super daemon. Mostly it's just not designed forã > > scalability. The data storage is just one tiny part of this issue.ã > > ã > > > But on the downside to ODBC is that there is a level of complicationã > > > to setting up ODBC drivers. On Windows its fairly simple and can beã > > > a step-by-step with screenshots. ODBC on Linux can sometimes beã > > > hellish.ã > > ã > > Which is a good reason for Synchronet not to rely on an ODBC driver.ã > > ã > > > My thinking was just a SQLite interface that extends the Javascriptã > > > engine as an alternative to regular file IO routines. ODBC for justã > > > the Javascript engine would be a bit overkill. IMHOã > > ã > > I think writing custom SQL bindings for the JS engine and *only*ã > > supporting SQLite would be underkill. If we were going to pick a singleã > > DB to support, I would likely choose PostgreSQL.ã > > ã > > ---ã > > http://DuckDuckGo.com/ a better search engine that respects yourã > > privacy.ã > > þ Synchronet þ My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)ãã---ã þ Synchronet þ Darkest Hour BBS - thedhbbs.comã

Re: Re: JSLibsã By: Badopcode to Badopcode on Wed Feb 29 2012 04:44:35ããHi Badopcode,ããI'll let others speak for themselves, however I have a feeling you are takingãit a little bit too harshly, matey!ãã > At any rate... I can perfectly add the SQLite3 extension myself and won'tã > bother you guys with it. I have fully done my homework on Synch JS andã > SQLite3 and know exactly how to approach the matter. The only downside isããFYI, this is what I've understood you to mean, in your initial post. I don'tãsee anything wrong with connecting Synchronet to whatever the hell you wish,ãout of any strange whim or volition. :)ããTo each their own. Keep me posted, if you progress this, please.ããKind regards,ãã art@fatcatsbbsdotcom ãã"You've made your choices, sir! You're a traitor! Now, if the bitter tasteã of that is unpalatable to you, I am truly sorry. But I will not risk myã crew because you think you can dance on the edge of the Neutral Zone."ã -- Picard in ST:TNG "The Defector"ãã---ã þ Synchronet þ fatcats bbs - fatcatsbbs.comã

Re: Re: JSLibsã By: Badopcode to Badopcode on Wed Feb 29 2012 04:44 amãã > Re-reading this and maybe you didn't mean it as a slam.ã > But seriously you could have just said you don't like SQLite and its notã > something your interested in pursuing. Maybe spared some hard feelings.ã > The impression you left me is you would only want to add connectivity to aã > "real" SQL service that is enterprise class. But won't because Synchronetã > isn't enterprise class and by your own definitions not a "real" server.ããI'm pretty sure what he was saying was: To embed SQLite was to pick an ãunder-powered SQL server that might not meet everyone's needs (everyone that is ãinterested in using a SQL server with Synchronet that is) and to embed ODBC ãsupport instead would open it up to any compliant database server and that ãwould be better. I understand that logic.ããThe second part (the response to the request to reimplement Synchronet's ãinternal databases in a SQL db engine) was that Synchronet would then not be ãable to run without a SQL server of some kind and that is an unusual/unexpected ãrequirement of a non-Enterprise class server. I totally agree with this ãstatement and would not support reimplementing Synchronet's databases in SQL.ããTwo different responses to 2 different suggestions/requests.ãã > At any rate... I can perfectly add the SQLite3 extension myself and won'tã > bother you guys with it.ããSomeone (Ragnarok?) already did it. Have you looked at his patch set?ããIf it's considered generally useful (to more than one Synchronet sysop), I'd ãdefinitely consider integrating into the CVS tree. So far, I think there's only ãbeen one interested sysop (before you).ãã digital manããSynchronet "Real Fact" #12:ãSynchronet was the first BBS software to ship with internal QWK networking.ãNorco, CA WX: 49.9øF, 81.0% humidity, 1 mph WNW wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrsã---ã þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.netã

Re: Re: JSLibsã By: Badopcode to Deuce on Tue Feb 28 2012 11:16 pmãã > Wow! Not the type of response I expected. Didn't mean to piss you off. Iã > mean I have no problem with a debate. Or even a project leader telling meã > no because I say no... but being blasted with a cynical circular logicã > explanation like I'm a overly excited child... not cool.ããEh? I'm not pissed off, I gave you my opinions on a subject I've looked in to.
I never once said "no" or provided any circular logic. I explained what I would do if I were doing it and some reasons why.ãã > Well this definitely curbs my enthusiasm.ãã*shrug*ããYou seem to have thin skin. Best you find out what I'm like before you try
hanging out with me. I'm always willing to give my opinion, and you're always welcome to ignore it.ããI'm not sure why my opinion matters that much to you.ãã---ãhttp://DuckDuckGo.com/ a better search engine that respects your privacy.ã þ Synchronet þ My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)ã

Re: Re: JSLibsã By: Badopcode to Badopcode on Wed Feb 29 2012 04:44 amãã > But seriously you could have just said you don't like SQLite and its notã > something your interested in pursuing. Maybe spared some hard feelings.ããI think that's what my first reply basically said:ãã > I have some work on adding ODBC support to Synchronet. I think thatã > marrying a specific engine would be a mistake - expecially one asã > purposefully weak as SQLite.ããIt was after that, when (I thought) serious discussion about DB support in JS
was starting that I brought out my opinions about specific APIs, methods, and DB engines.ãã > The impression you left me is you would only want to add connectivity to aã > "real" SQL service that is enterprise class.ããWell, what I meant is that I would prefer to not make the decision for the
script writer and that Synchronet should not use ODBC for storage of its own data.ãã > To me, Synchronet is a "real" light weight but powerful social networkã > server.ããSure, I was just warning you that it's not enterprise class and a handfull of
people working in their spare time won't get it there. Using it as a basis for
a site which massive growth is expected will likely mean re-writing everything at some point in the future.ãã > SQLite is no different than doing everything by hand with binary packedã > files except your not doing the dirty foot work of writing query code.ããAnd we already have binary packed files that work without anyone spending a
largsh number of hours working very hard to make Synchronet run exactly the same.ããBut my objection ws to using ODBC to store the configuration data. SQLite is
less bad (though the above paragraph still applies).ãã > But the most important thing is... you just don't like it and that's fine.ããI like it just fine. I've used it in a number of projects... I just don't like
it as the only option a JS scripter would have - and I would be less likely both to use it and to pitch in making it work well.ããBut nobody says you need my help to get anything done.ãã > I say nothing but praises about you, DM and all the other great peopleã > putting their precious time and talents into Synchronet. You guys rock.ã > Truly. That's why I was so shocked.ããAsk anyone, I don't pull any punches when it comes to beating you over the head
with my opinion about technical subjects. Some people deal by never asking my opinion, others deal by ignoring me - it's very few who attempt to understand all my points and apply them to their contributions (Cyan, echicken, and mcmlxxix - you all know which category you fall in to :-).ããIt seemed everyone knew this about me, so I'm surprised that you're shocked.ãã > I don't know, maybe you guys get bombarded with whines and people thatã > won't drop crap. I am a developer as well and have been through thatã > myself. So I know how it goes. All you need is one bad day and yet oneã > more douchebag whining for you to do something you could care less aboutã > and its postal time.ããNah, I'm like this all the time. I'll hide my opinions at work, but nobody is
payng me to shut up about Synchronet development.ããYou should know that DM and I disagree on some fairly basic archetectural
decisions. My opinion shouldn't be the one to follow if you want to be guaranteed to have your code imported and eventually a commit bit... mine is just the one you should follow if you agree that it's the best way to do something.ãã > I'm sorry and apologize if I was that douchebag that touched you off. Inã > no way was I trying to demand and was totally with the utmost respect andã > humbleness. But I could see how maybe my messages could get interpreted asã > me trying to drive marching orders.ããYou're free to program anything you like. If it's cool, we'll ask for you to
pollute CVS with it. If it's reasonably good quality and you're willing to maintain it, we'll likely give you a commit bit. If you break stuff, we'll take it away.ããBasically, talk it over with DM before you break what already works (including
non-ANSI 7-bit ASCII only telnet support) and everything will be fine.ãã > At any rate... I can perfectly add the SQLite3 extension myself and won'tã > bother you guys with it. I have fully done my homework on Synch JS andã > SQLite3 and know exactly how to approach the matter.ããExcellent!ãã > So I won't release my code into the wild as it will mean havingã > to answer whining and crying myself. That's what I was avoiding and can'tã > blame you for not wanting to deal with that over something your don't evenã > like.ããHaving some DB access will be preferred by some to having none at all (though
mcmlxxix's JSON DB is pretty awesome). If you make it a compile-time option, nobody will object to keeping it in CVS. You should likely hang out in #Synchronet on irc.synchro.net though.ãã > Again I apologize if I came off sounding like I was demanding slave laborã > from you guys. That is not what I was trying to convey at all.ããNo apology necessary. Just as I don't expect you to care what I think, I do
not yet have any reason to care what you think. :-) A little bit of code goes
a long way.ããã---ãhttp://DuckDuckGo.com/ a better search engine that respects your privacy.ã þ Synchronet þ My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)ã

Re: Re: JSLibsã By: Deuce to Badopcode on Thu Mar 01 2012 23:46:50ãã > Ask anyone, I don't pull any punches when it comes to beating you over the hã > with my opinion about technical subjects. Some people deal by never asking ã > opinion, others deal by ignoring me - it's very few who attempt to understanã > all my points and apply them to their contributions (Cyan, echicken, andã > mcmlxxix - you all know which category you fall in to :-).ããYeah, we all just ignore you :)ãã---ã þ Synchronet þ The BRoKEN BuBBLE (MDJ.ATH.CX)ã

Re: Re: JSLibsã By: Deuce to Badopcode on Thu Mar 01 2012 23:46:50ãã > all my points and apply them to their contributions (Cyan, echicken, and ã > mcmlxxix - you all know which category you fall in to :-).ããHmm, I think which category I fall into changes from day to day. I find I'mãmore receptive to your input when my blood sugar is normal, I've had a goodãnight's sleep and my bowels are empty.ãã > Having some DB access will be preferred by some to having none at all (thougã > mcmlxxix's JSON DB is pretty awesome). If you make it a compile-time optionã > nobody will object to keeping it in CVS. You should likely hang out in ã > #Synchronet on irc.synchro.net though.ããThe JSON DB is very useful, great for interBBS stuff as well as for localãapplications. Those who are most comfortable with SQL may not be able to getãdown with it right away, but it's worth considering where a DB is needed. Someãlevel of SQL support wouldn't be a bad thing for those who prefer to use it (Iãdon't feel the need for it,) but since Synchronet is typically used as aãsmall-scale / hobbyist platform, I imagine that the JSON DB is suitable forãmost purposes that people put it to.ããechickenãelectronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230ãã---ã þ Synchronet þ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.comã

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----ãHash: SHA1ããEl 01/03/12 05:46, Digital Man escribió:ã> Two different responses to 2 different suggestions/requests.ã> ã>> At any rate... I can perfectly add the SQLite3 extension myselfã>> and won't bother you guys with it.ã> ã> Someone (Ragnarok?) already did it. Have you looked at his patchã> set?ã> ã> If it's considered generally useful (to more than one Synchronetã> sysop), I'd definitely consider integrating into the CVS tree. Soã> far, I think there's only been one interested sysop (before you).ã> ã> digital manã> ãyes, i still here !ã=)ã-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----ãVersion: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)ãComment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ããiEYEARECAAYFAk9RXh8ACgkQrka4e4h7i+MJiQCgzh3gkSDc+55pN1Q2A+U0SSUeãer8An32YHn1Fwyx5MkWqhudtf/f74eiqã=rZhWã-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----ãã---ã þ Synchronet þ Dock Sud BBS TLD 24 HS - http://www.docksud.com.ar - telnet://bbs.docksud.com.arã