Re: features in the next release?

[Tobias Downer <toby@xxxxxxxxx>]

It's really really close now.  Note that the [a-h] releases are mostly 
bug fix releases.  The number changes are minor and major feature changes.

Yes to stored procedure support (based on your patch).  Also there are 
improvements to the low level IO to sort out outstanding NIO issues, 
abstraction of the persistence layer to support alternative data file 
representations, support for large streamable objects, sequences, 
composite table functions, and a whole of other changes.

A lot of time has been spent ensuring the file format is correct and can 
support all future features because I want to try and get out of the 
'convert database each release' pattern and rather build on top of a 
very flexible data representation.  The format has now been finalized 
and I will be updating CVS soon.  For anyone keeping up to date with 
CVS, after I update the public server you will need to use the 
DataFileConvertTool to convert an existing database.

Toby.

Jim McBeath wrote:
> Toby,
> 
> Do you have a list of the features you are planning on including in the
> next release, or a list of the things you are currently working on?
> For example, one archived message says you are planning on including
> stored procedures in 1.0, and another says the next release after 0.94
> will be 1.0, from which one can infer that the next release will include
> stored procedures.  But plans change, so I am wondering if this conclusion
> is still valid.  Or perhaps that's why we have 0.94[a-h] rather than
> 0.95 to 0.101?  :-)
> 
> I was unable to find an answer in the mailing list archives, and could not
> find any web pages on mckoi.com that gave the information.  The TODO list
> does not tell when things are expected to be done or specify priorities.
> By the way, the FAQ says version 1.0 is expected in 3Q 2002 - you might
> want to change that.
> 
> Another aside: is there a way to search the archive for a two word phrase,
> such as "next release", without matching records which contain both
> words but not together?  Or a way to order the results by date rather
> than relevance?
> 
> -Jim