Michael L Gueterman wrote:

>   Maybe a compromise is in order here :)

compromise is good :-)

> .  A new BLOB datatype is added to image.
>    .  It is essentially a 1024 byte variable length string.
>    .  The value represents the HFS pathname.

yup

> .  The BLOB data is stored as a standard bytestream file except
>    it also has a privileged filecode.

yup

> .  When the user "stores" a BLOB, Image handles the acquisition
>    of the filename and creates the file.  The HFS path to that
>    file is then stored as the value of the BLOB dataitem.

i doubt that would fly (personally).

> .  A new flag could be added to the root file to determine whether
>    or not the BLOB HFS files should be associated with the database
>    (thus allowing you to store/restore the database without regard
>    to the potentially zillion BLOB files that are internally referenced).

certainly, it would be good for the database to be aware of whether or not it's
been...hold on to your seats....blob-ulized :-)  unfortunately, this
'enhancement' has a strong 'enchilada' smell to it <sigh>

>   While the above is "rough" to say the least, it gives Image the
> ability to handle BLOBs as a dataitem while not sacrificing Image
> internals.  The BLOBs are relatively secure from most users as
> privileged files, and it "sounds" like the changes needed to implement
> BLOBs wouldn't be tremendous.

i don't think it would take much (although certain image labbies will probably
disagree with me) to make image blob-aware.  the thing that concerns me the most
is doing <something> to better ensure the integrity of the blob data.  with the
data physically outside the realms of the database, anyone -- with sufficient
capability, priv code or not -- can purge (or otherwise muck with) these files.
crack this 'nut' and (i think) the problem is solved.

> So, what do you think?  The beginnings of a SIG Image 2002 SIB item?

it's certainly a possibility, imo.  perhaps the bigger question is -- how many
people really need blob storage capability that's strongly attached to image?

of course, if wishes were horse and we could attach an postgresql database to
image (or the other way around?), there might not be any technical problem to
solve :-)            - d

--
Donna Garverick     Sr. System Programmer
925-210-6631        [log in to unmask]

"Unix _is_ user friendly.
It's just very selective about who its friends are.
And sometimes even best friends have fights."

>>>MY opinions, not Longs Drug Stores'<<<