Re: SQL independence.
> OK; it seems somewhat overkill to use
> stored procedures for something like
> this, and it comes with the penalty of
> I guess we'll just have to wait or use
> something else, such is life in the
> world of OS.
It's pretty obvious you don't understand databases. OpenNMS is targeting an Enterprise Solution. Part of that need is performance. Real databases support stored procedures because they can significantly save on both CPU and disk bandwidth. Use of stored procedures also ensures a consistent API is exposed to would-be developers.
Since you're mandating a request of MySQL plus insisting the use of stored procedures should be abandoned, you should really be looking at alternate solutions since your mandates are wholly incompatible with an Enterprise quality solution.
> Being able to use MySQL is essential to
That's pretty funny. This is like saying we can't can't buy a car until it explodes when you can least afford it. Only after it constantly explodes will you consider buying the vehicle.
Hehehe...too funny. Shesh...just about any DB is going to prove more reliable and robust than MySQL. There is a reason why real DBAs consider MySQL to be trash...because it is. It lacks features, teaches poor SQL coding habits, isn't reliable, scales like crap, so on and so on. Seriously...if you consider MySQL to be a mandatory feature then you absolutely are not looking for an Enterprise Solution. Period.
> Unknown at the moment. We are getting
> ready to release 1.3.0 [..]
> We use some stored procedures that MySQL
> did not support prior to 5, which is one
> of the reasons the movement to MySQL
> would be difficult.
OK; it seems somewhat overkill to use stored procedures for something like this, and it comes with the penalty of portability.
I guess we'll just have to wait or use something else, such is life in the world of OS.
> % % Are there any plans for database
> % % independence?
> % With 2.0, the next big development
> % we are using
> % Hibernate (www.hibernate.org)
> % abstract the
> % database layer, so it might be
> % to use mySQL then.
> What's the plan for 2.0.. release date..
> roadmap.. ?
Unknown at the moment. We are getting ready to release 1.3.0 (before LinuxWorld Expo in August) which adds SNMPv3 support, alarms and JMX monitoring.
We use some stored procedures that MySQL did not support prior to 5, which is one of the reasons the movement to MySQL would be difficult. The OpenNMS Group (www.opennms.com) provides commercial support and services for OpenNMS, and they might be able to spec a project for you to support MySQL if the need is immediate.
> % Are there any plans for database
> % independence?
> With 2.0, the next big development push,
> we are using
> Hibernate (www.hibernate.org) to
> abstract the
> database layer, so it might be possible
> to use mySQL then.
What's the plan for 2.0.. release date.. roadmap.. ?
Being able to use MySQL is essential to us.
> Are there any plans for database
With 2.0, the next big development push, we are using
Hibernate (www.hibernate.org) to abstract the
database layer, so it might be possible to use mySQL then.
We used stored procedures for the IPLIKE function and for
the RTC daemon. The latter is going away in 2.0 and the
former is going to be written in SQL.
> Looks good but I use MySQL. I noticed in
> the mail list archive that because of
> some SQL procedures it would be too
> complicated to port over.
The main problem is that OpenNMS uses C based stored procedures which, as I understand it, are not possible on MySQL. In addition, PostgreSQL provides many enterprise features that MySQL lacks, but which are used in OpenNMS.
Looks good but I use MySQL. I noticed in the mail list archive that because of some SQL procedures it would be too complicated to port over.
Are there any plans for database independence?
Software designed to assemble, organize, and share collections of data about resources.
A tool to read the contents of your smartcard.