James Gray wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2009, at 3:06 PM, NARUSE, Yui wrote:
> 
>> Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
>>
>>> To be honest, I'd prefer shipping a pure-Ruby SQL implementation that
>>> *everyone* can run on any platform, performance be damned. I think
>>> that would be the Ruby way.
>>
>> If exits, this sounds the best answer :)
> 
> So would we be using an existing SQLite library?  Or building our own?

Is there a pure ruby sqlite library, or for that matter _any_ pure ruby 
sql rdbms library? Google doesn't find anything in the first few pages 
of hits (not counting pure ruby clients to sql dbs, and pure ruby sql 
generators).

If there were, would anyone use it? Seems doubtful, due to the 
"performance be damned" comment. Supporting a significant fraction of 
SQL and RDB seems like a huge effort for marginal value.

But I'm not in favor of native sqlite in stdlib, either, after listening 
to the convincing arguments from Charles and others.

Tell me again, why does out-of-the-box ruby need a sql database? For 
most simple purposes (config files, saving program state) aren't yaml, 
marshal, and pstore enough? For more complex purposes, there are gems, 
and there is the unavoidable need to make choices. Sqlite isn't even 
always the best choice for lightweight db (if you value thread/process 
concurrency and don't care about sql, then IMO fsdb is a better choice).

-- 
       vjoel : Joel VanderWerf : path berkeley edu : 510 665 3407