Re: requests for clarification

[Anil Madhavapeddy <anil@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 10:40:14AM +0000, Richard Mortier wrote:
> 
> yes- that is exactly the example i was thinking of - some
> straightforward way to have the code that implements both archiving a
> versioned set of config files (the "immutable append-only store"), and
> that links the on-disk representation with the live in-memory (or
> indeed, distributed over-network) version(s).  
> 
> i do like the idea of having a config file edited outwith its owning
> application wake up the application to detect and respond to the change-
> which feels more like a network interaction than a normal storage
> interaction.

Yeah, and the main issue with using the ORM as it exists is that it uses
SQLite, which isn't great for large immutable data structures.

Interestingly though, there are some cool new storage systems being
written in OCaml for NoSQL use. See:
http://arakoon.org/
and more directly a storage backend:
http://blog.incubaid.com/2011/12/23/announcing-baardskeerder/

It even uses Lwt! :-)

The basic type-conv/dyntype infrastructure that is used by the ORM can be
easily translated to a non-SQL backend too.

-a