Re: one more lib for SPTK

["Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh" <ilya@total-knowledge.com>]

"Business usage"
Think web GUI in embedded appliance with _very_ limited resources.
Think about having 32M of RAM as luxury. These aren't some random numbers
I pulled out of my ass - most low-end routers nowdays have that kind of 
resources.

Currently web GUI for devices like that are some sort of CGI scripts - 
which isn't
very nice thing to program.

Java API is lot better - but running java on such device is clear 
overkill. CPPSERV is
ideal use, yet, there is no need for database - all such thing would 
need is access to XML
API.

BTW, CPPSERV itself should never aim at providing database API, nor 
should directly
link to any particular one. Instead, it's decision of servlet writer.

Yes, we could (and abviously you do) provide database access API 
alongside, which
integrates nicely into it, but we shouldn't force it on end userd, 
because, let's face it,
there are far more programs out there that are not using SPTK for 
database, then those
that are.

Which is yet another reason to unbind utility classes from database classes.
Imagine what would happen if someone wanted to write a servlet using 
database API
XZZY that also has classes named CQuery and CDatabase in it...



Alexey Parshin wrote:

> Every bit aint matter for the last 10yrs (I don't know where have you
> been all this time). There is no useful application these day that
> isn't using databases. At least, in business. The dependencies are
> cut-off with configure. If SPTK has something that you need to exclude
> - offer more options in configure instead. Just remember - SPTK was
> designed mostly to provide GUI+DB. If you can use it for something
> else - that's fine. In CPPServ, for instance - you'd need to provide
> database access, otherwise its business usage is very limited.
>
> 2005/9/29, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh <ilya@total-knowledge.com>:
>  
>
> > Problem 1:
> > Loading of unneeded code (I'm thinking embedded here)
> >    
> For embedded you need something much better using memory than SPTK. I
> sacrificed the efficiency of old SPTK classes to the standards of STL
> :(
>
>  
>
> > Problem 2:
> > Dependancy on unneeded tools (partially solved when you separated GUI
> > and database)
> >    
> Yes, and if we have anything else here - lets discuss it. Doesn't make
> much sense, though. 99% Windows and many Linux machines already have
> everything to install full-blown SPTK. If not - than we are talking
> about some home machine, and it's not clear for me what SPTK is doing
> there :)
>
>  
>
> > Problem 3:
> > Readability
> >    
> Come on :) Same classes would be groupped differently?
>
>  
>
> > In case of CPPSERV, there is no need in any database-related stuff, but
> >    
> That is a mistake. If you really want people to use it of'course. Just
> imagine someone who isn't happy with anything else but CPPServ - and
> not using database? That's funny :)
>
>  
>
> > I can make
> > good use of most of other utilities (Registry, XML, Threading).
> >    
> I understand that part.
>
>  
>
> > Now, if I ever decide to use it in embedded application, every bit will
> > matter.
> >    
> I don't beleive in STL usage for embedded devices. STL is wasting
> memory and application size like crazy. It's also slower than regular
> classes, even if they require more work.
>  

--
Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh
Total Knowledge. CTO
http://www.total-knowledge.com