maria-developers team mailing list archive

[Alex Yurchenko <alexey.yurchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 13:15:31 +0100, Hakan Kuecuekyilmaz
<hakan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
<skip>
> On 30.10.2009, at 21:35, Arjen Lentz wrote:
<skip>
>> The rationale is this.
>> From the experience with PBXT, people really want/need binaries/ 
>> packages before they will try things. If 5.1 binaries had had PBXT  
>> plugin sitting there, lots more people would have tried it earlier,  
>> filed bugreports and feedback, and Paul would have been where he is  
>> now much quicker. With MariaDB pulling it in it's ok now, but it's  
>> just a darn waste and pity of the earlier time.
>>
I think Arjen makes a pretty good point here. Plugin architecture offers a
remarkable opportunity to safely advertise and promote new stuff. The
possibility to easily try new promising plugins without a hassle of
downloading and compiling sources would surely be welcomed by the users and
add value to MariaDB. In some cases it might be a decisive factor in
choosing between MySQL and MariaDB.
<skip>
> 
> You are right, it would not matter, if nobody loads that engine. But  
> people will
> load it and it can lead to instabilities.

If people don't want to try this engine, they will hardly load it.
If people want to try this engine, then some of them will download
sources, compile, install - "and it can lead to instabilities". You just
make their lifes harder by not including the binary.

> My answer is: no new features after beta.

If you call plugin a "feature", what sort of "plugin" is that? The whole
point of a plugin concept is to get rid of "features", isn't it?

Sincerely,
Alex
 
-- 
Alexey Yurchenko,
Codership Oy, www.codership.com
Skype: alexey.yurchenko, Phone: +358-400-516-011