~drizzle-trunk/drizzle/development

* So why?

I've been wondering for a long time now about all of the changes post 4.1.

I believe there is a large market of users who never wanted them, and never

cared for them. I also wanted to question the foundations of what we built.

Do uses want wrong data? How often is the query cache really valuable? If

everyone just has a root user with all privs, why carry the baggage of the

ACL code. Etc.

* What is the GOAL?

A micro-kernel that we then extend to add what we need (all additions come

through interfaces that can be compiled/loaded in as needed). 

* So the differences?

No modes, views, triggers, stored procedures, query cache, bad data inserts,

ACL. Less engines, less code. Assume the primary engine is transactional. 

* Why now?

Why not now :)

* "This is awesome, but I need you to add back..."

Forget it. Nothing is going back in at this time. As for the future? Maybe,

but at the moment this suits my needs better. If you want more features, go

use MySQL.

* What platforms?

I compile on OSX, Linux (Fedora), and Solaris Express. Windows is not

supported and will stay that way unless it gets a working posix layer +

autoconf system (aka becomes a platform that is reasonable to support).

* What about XA?

It may return as a bit in the protocol. Lets see if anyone notices that it is

gone first :)

* What is the future?

Less code, more modularity, and more active involvement. A few things that

still need to be done:

- Switch to stdint

- Walk through all of the replication code

- Re-implement information schema

- Modular logging system

* "This is not a SQL compliant relational..."

Very true, and we do not aim to be that. 

* What is left to be cut out?

Bit type... we need a longer list.

* Why drizzle?

I am from Seattle. Drizzle is our normal form of "rain" but its not "rain".

It is drizzle.

  -Brian

    Seattle, USA