Steve Summers wrote:

>I hate to disagree with the architect, but as a developer, I'm having a difficult time imagining a real-world use case for
>saving individual attachments that are several times larger than the entire Star Wars series recorded in High definition as one
>giant file. Even with the fastest hardware available today, the engine would take at least minutes just to extract that much
>data from the drive, pretty much locking up the system from doing anything else the whole time. That doesn't sound like a
>particularly good design, to me. I'd break it up into separate movies, at least.
>
>

Good technical argument. In fact, convincing. The primary problem with
limits isn't technical but marketing. Any limit, no matter how
reasonable, is a red flag to anyone how wants to torpedo selection of a
particular product. Removing the limit means you don't have to argue
about it any more and nobody can use it against you.

The various limits in Interbase were chosen to be "reasonable".
However, time, hardware, and sensibilities change. Also, Ann won't let
me use shorts any more.

>Wouldn't the time required to extend the three level scheme to 4 or more levels, to make it possible for stupid design decisions
>(e.g. setting page size to 1K for a database full of huge attachments) to still work, be better spent on features that are
>actually useful?
>
>
>

Adding a level will probably take somebody the better part of an
afternoon. The only defensible reason not to do is that you don't have
a configuration that can test it.

By the way, is your high res version of the first Star Wars the original
or the one that Lucas screwed up to appeal to the 6-8 year old market
segment? [Note: first in this context means the first released, not the
moronic one with the flatulent dinosaur.]

--

Jim Starkey
Netfrastructure, Inc.
978 526-1376