[MUD-Dev] Re: From DevMud: Database module

[Greg Connor]

>Greg Connor wrote:
>> Anyway, the context is "trying to develop an API for a generic database
>> module". 

Mik Clarke wrote:
>I hope you have a good reason for not using ODBC or JDBC?


Er, mostly that I don't know much about it...  One of the things I have
heard is that some of the big-name database that support it do so at a
performance cost, and there may be good reason for going direct to the
database in its native mode.  Does anyone have direct experience as to
whether this is true?

Also, it's entirely possible that some developer will replace the
"database" later with something they created from scratch (like something
that stores all objects in ram and checkpoints periodically) to meet a
certain need...  My guess is that if you're writing from scratch, it may be
much easier to conform to the generic dbmodule spec than to the ODBC spec.

Does anyone have experience with a Mud that uses either ODBC or JDBC as its
main storage?  Or for that matter, and third-party db as its backing store?
 I would be interested to know about it...

Thanks for the info