HP3000-L Archives

May 2001, Week 4

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Tom Emerson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Tom Emerson <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 23 May 2001 14:19:49 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (48 lines)
On Wed, 23 May 2001 10:31:22 -0700, Mark Bixby <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>"VANCE,JEFF (HP-Cupertino,ex1)" wrote:
>> ...  The make is going better now, but I have
>> some missing includes:
>>
>>   sys/param.h, sys/file.h, syslog.h, resolv.h, ndbm.h.
[...]
>
>For ndbm.h, congratulations, you've hit the sendmail dependency on an alias
>database type.  There are a number of choices here.  Bixby.org chose the
>now ANCIENT db-1.85.  A much more modern db is available from
>http://www.sleepycat.com.  I put in alot of effort to get sleepycat
>running on MPE.  It "mostly" works, but fails a bunch of self-tests.
>This is a full blown DBMS with logging and transactions and recovery and a
>bunch of stuff that doesn't apply to sendmail alias files.  The selftest
>failures may not be a problem for use with sendmail.  My memory is a bit
>hazy now on whether or not I actually attempted to build sendmail with
>sleepycat.

Let's see here -- "sendmail" is looking for a full-blown DBMS with
transaction & logging capability -- seems to me IMAGE comes to mind... ;)

Let me pose a big "why not?" here -- after all:

  -- the DBMS is native to the platform, thus less dependancy on
another "rough-fit" application [DBMS]
  -- we already know how to program for this DBMS [and quite well, I might
add :) ]
  -- the "port" is to this platform, not the other way around -- I would
maintain that a platform-specific version of a program should make the most
of the resources available to that platform.
  -- I don't think the "structure" of the database will change [except
perhaps with the next release of sendmail, but that would be "another port"
anyway...] however capacity sizing might be an issue [but we have HP & 3rd
party tools for that anyway...]

Of course, one "why not?" reason/rationalization might be that it would
take a significant amount of effort to code the database calls "correctly"
(efficiently?) in the first place...

Just a thought...

Tom

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

ATOM RSS1 RSS2