Re: LO / Firebird DB Integration

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 03:19:32PM +0100, Andrzej J. R. Hunt wrote:
> On 24/06/13 12:25, David Tardon wrote:
> > If this is the current option, could we please consider the possibility
> > to drop the whole idea and just stay with hsqldb? With my distro hat on,
> > I do not see any improvement with having to bundle hsqldb vs. having to
> > bundle firebird.
> The main motivation for the switch was (another step in) getting rid of
> java (at least for me personally it is, and AFAICS for most other people
> too), and not the bundling of a db.

IMHO that is a wrong reason. We should be choosing another DB because 1/
it promises a good backwards compatibility of its data format (so the
ODB created with one version of the DB can be opened with newer
versions) and 2/ it does not force us to use a specific configuration to
achieve 1/ (so we are not forced to bundle the DB), not because "it is
not java". Getting rid of another java dependency should be just a nice
side effect.

> And there appear to be solutions to
> allow reliable use of external firebird with various ICUs (see mails
> from Lionel/Michael) -- so either way firebird still makes the most
> sense to me.

_If_ it can be done, great, and I am all for firebird. But if it cannot,
I would much rather stay with hsqldb.

D.