Ray Kiddy wrote:
But there are people at Yahoo who know MySQL. Jeremy Zawodny comes to mind. He works there and his O'Reilly book called 'High Performance MySQL' is coming out soon. The word "Replication" is in the title of the book, so they could probably even help set this up so as not to impact the wikipedia over-all.
O.k., I'll ask, but...
It will probably not be too difficult to come up with a feed oriented to them, but what happens when another organization wants the same feed. But, oh yes, in a slightly different form. And another. And another.
My view is that if each individual feed is of benefit to us, then we provide what each of them needs. :-) To me, your question is like "What if after this one person gives you an enormous free benefit, someone else wants to give you even more? And someone else?" It's delightful, that's what. :-)
Having said that, of course we want to be efficient, but search engines who want to send us traffic are not leeches, they are beneficiaries to our cause.
Again, the people you might be talking to might not be the database people, so maybe they think that the solution they need is not a database solution.
That's right. The people I'm talking to are not the database people. I can ask, but really, I don't think it really makes sense for *them* to have to run different solutions for every different site that they are dealing with. For them, the easy thing is to have a standard XML format and go from there.
- growing the wiki community and the database that keeps the
collective corpus together, and
- feeding this to various corporate clients, again and again and
again, with all their ever-changing requirements
then one of these seems to be closer to the core mission than the other.
I agree completely, but I don't really see how these compete with each other.
--Jimbo