simple persistence without databases
From: slothbear (farbot_at_gmail.com)
Date: 03/08/05
- Previous message: Oscar kind: "Re: Figuring out the Correct Approach <scratch head>"
- Next in thread: Manuel J. Goyenechea: "Re: simple persistence without databases"
- Reply: Manuel J. Goyenechea: "Re: simple persistence without databases"
- Reply: dar7yl: "Re: simple persistence without databases"
- Reply: Robert Klemme: "Re: simple persistence without databases"
- Reply: frebe: "Re: simple persistence without databases"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 8 Mar 2005 11:52:07 -0800
I have a simple application that has been using standard serialization
for the save format. I have a small user community; no one has
complained about the save format breaking with each new version
(because I change class structure). But ... it is kind of
unprofessional and I would like to fix it.
A "real" database looks like overkill. Some of the smaller options
(M.A.O.S., db4o) look interesting, but they are still kind of
heavy/complicated for my little program (which is currently 88K).
My current plan is to save one big Map, which will contain an
assortment of smaller Maps with simple types. That will get rid of the
class structure dependency. Much of the data are already in Maps (of
simple types), so the save/load code will not have to do much juggling
of values.
Does that sound like a reasonable plan, or has my searching/researching
overlooked a more simple method?
thanks!
- Previous message: Oscar kind: "Re: Figuring out the Correct Approach <scratch head>"
- Next in thread: Manuel J. Goyenechea: "Re: simple persistence without databases"
- Reply: Manuel J. Goyenechea: "Re: simple persistence without databases"
- Reply: dar7yl: "Re: simple persistence without databases"
- Reply: Robert Klemme: "Re: simple persistence without databases"
- Reply: frebe: "Re: simple persistence without databases"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|