[Info-vax] Long uptime cut short by Hurricane Sandy

[AEF]

On Feb 8, 9:15 pm, Stephen Hoffman <seaoh... at hoffmanlabs.invalid>
wrote:
> On 2013-02-06 01:00:46 +0000, AEF said:
>
> > On Feb 5, 10:48 am, Stephen Hoffman <seaoh... at hoffmanlabs.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> So you are seeking a key-value data store, something that logical names
> >> classically excel at stinking at.
>
> > I'm not familiar with the term key-value data store.
>
> In RMS terms, think "indexed file".  You have a Key.  And you have a
> Value associated with it.
>
> > And I take it
> > you're saying that for this purpose, logical names stink well.
>
> Ayup, logical names commonly used for this, and I've used them for this
> myself, and I've learned to completely despise this approach.
>
> Logical names are a disaster for this usage; for storing information
> and for storing and retrieving preferences data, or application data.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Logical names got us the morass that is the DEC C feature logical
> >> names, after all.
>
> >> Sure, it works.
>
> >> At least until you trip into some other user; a collision.
>
> >> Or you need to scan all keys, as both VMS and environment variables
> >> lack wildcards.
>
> > In TO.COM you can set it so that all its logical names start with
> > TO_ . This should avoid a collision. Instead of TO_0, TO_1, TO_2,
> > etc., I prefer HERE, LAST, 2BACK, 3BACK, . . . . They're much easier
> > and faster to type, and that has never cause me a problem. If it does
> > cause a problem you can instead use the TO_ versions. So where's the
> > problem?
>
> The problem is you have a crap-ton of random logical names, with no
> connections, with the possibility collisions, with no clean-up
> mechanisms, and usually then with the general disaster that the DECC$
> mechanisms have garnered themselves.

Well, the ones that start with TO_ are not random. Sorry, connections
to what? Also, I am not familiar with the DECC$ disaster.

I used logical names because I want to use them in generalized file-
specs, so to speak. Used it for years and it never caused a problem.
You'll say I was lucky. Perhaps.

So what _can_ we use logical names for?

>
> Both the stuff I mentioned above, and the stuff I mentioned below:
>
> >> Upgrades can be fun, where these are added or removed; there's no
> >> "attachment" back to the application.
>
> >> No namespaces, for that matter.
>
> >> There are other issues.
>
> Logical names get abused far too often, largely because DCL lacks any
> sort of a generic preferences storage and retrieval mechanism, or an
> integrated key-value mechanism short of using (for instance) an RMS
> indexed file.
>
> This design inevitiably reminds me of using punch cards to store this
> data.  Sure, that works.  It's even superior to using logical names in
> a way.  But it's really ugly, it's a whole lot of work for what you
> get, and it's quite easy to make mistakes, and upgrades and cleanups
> can be a problem.  Unlike a deck of punch cards, logical names don't
> have a way to read the whole wad of keys and values — data — and see
> what's there, too.

OK, I won't run TO.COM when doing an upgrade, if I ever do one again,
that is.

>
> --
> Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC

AEF