Better database??

[michael at optusnet.com.au]

David Relson <relson at osagesoftware.com> writes:
> Michael,
> 
> Let me see if I can summarize the effect:
> 
> Rather than passing a pointer to a struct containing the 3 values, you'd
> prefer to pass a trio of values (for writing) or a trio of addresses
> (for reading).  Yes?

Unless I terribly misread the code, the datastores actually get passed
a 12 byte array rather than a struct? (dbv_t *v containing void *data,
and uint32_t len)

And while I can do ((uint32_t*)v->data)[1], it's rather
kludgy... :)

What I'd really rather is that the datastores got passed dsv_t* and word_t*.

What would be even better is to have the datastore's pass a struct containing
a bunch of function pointers to datastore.c which implements stub functions
for all functions that aren't filled in.

I.e. pass 
{
        func_t (*set_token)(),
        func_t (*get_token)(),
        func_t (*set_robx)(),
        ....
} 
and then datastore can do
        if (set_robs)
                set_robx(new_robx_value)
        else {
                dbv_t x;
                x.spam = robx;
                set_token(msg_robx_token, &dbv_t);
        }

etc etc. Does that make any sense?? After typing all this I'm
realizing that I should have just implemented it and sent in the patch
because it would have been clearer and less work. :)

Michael, dreaming of a white christmas.