Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

headbirth · Jan 9, 2003, 05:32 PM

I would love to see Apple implement a central database containing all sorts of information and different types of data that other apps could tie into and modify. iCal has a database, Addressbook has a database, Safari has a database, iPhoto has a database, etc...

Why not just one central one supporting multiple media and information types.

Third parties could then build apps to manipulate this data as the user wishes and write plugins to add new formats to the database.

Just a quick thought that needs fleshing out....

DeathMan · Jan 9, 2003, 06:10 PM

This could help solve a lot of the problems that many are having with iPhoto libraries getting too big. (Or iTunes) They could build mysql (or some other database) into the OS for use with iTunes, iPhoto, and whatever else, and run cron jobs to update the current xml files every so often, (like locate), so that apps built on current xml lists would not break quite as badly. It would be a nice system, if 3rd party had access to those this db, and could use it in their own products. Good call. Centralize the iApps.

Millennium · Jan 9, 2003, 06:33 PM

Windows has a database kind of like this. They call it the Registry, and it's one of the reasons Windows is so insecure and unstable. Too many things depend on it, and it ends up being corrupted.

For the record, Safari and iCal do not use "databases" in the sense that you're describing. Their interfaces may be similar to those iApps with more sophisticated file storage, but they actually use plain flat files for their work.

headbirth · Jan 9, 2003, 07:34 PM

It would definetly be easier to sync things. I was thinking this database would also store files or paths to files.....your bookmarks, calender events....

Not sure, what do you think comprises a comprehensive database? Just text or would it be content like images, sounds, movies, etc...

Apple saw fit to force a directory structure on use with folders like Pictures, Movies, etc... what if these were hidden in some core database that we could access with different iApps.....

Amorya · Jan 9, 2003, 09:00 PM

The Newton did that, didn't it?

Amorya

Millennium · Jan 9, 2003, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by headbirth:
Not sure, what do you think comprises a comprehensive database? Just text or would it be content like images, sounds, movies, etc...

There are more possibilities than could ever be accounted for. That's why a database of that sort just doesn't work.

Apple saw fit to force a directory structure on use with folders like Pictures, Movies, etc... what if these were hidden in some core database that we could access with different iApps...

The Pictures, Movies, etc. directories are not forced on you. Indeed, the only directory in your Home folder that you have to use at all is ~/Library, and that's no different from the System Folder of OS9.

itai195 · Jan 9, 2003, 10:49 PM

I don't know about you, but I'd rather not lose all my data when one application on my system decides to go haywire. If you prefer that experience, switch to Microsoft Windows.

headbirth · Jan 9, 2003, 10:56 PM

That's what Journaling is for! It would be easier to backup as well.

Anyway....is it O.K. to delete Apples Pictues, Movies, Etc.... folders? I thought do so caused havoc.

clarkgoble · Jan 9, 2003, 11:40 PM

The Windows Registry is something different. For one it isn't that robust. For an other it is much more equivalent to what OSX has with NetInfo. (Although Apple has been moving more towards the FreeBSD way of doing things as opposed to the NeXT way of doing things of late)

This is all about having a *real* database for doing *real* database things. It wouldn't be a single database for everything. More having a library standard on OSX that does those sort of things. MySQL would be ideal, but Apple can't easily distribute that standard, I believe. (It is technically a commercial product as I recall) I don't know about mSQL. Something like that though *standard* on OSX, say with 10.3, would be GREAT. It would improve the capability of the various iApps and would provide 3rd party companies added capabilities as well.

kman42 · Jan 10, 2003, 12:14 AM

Isn't this what MS is doing with their database filesystem and isn't it what BeOS did?

kman

clarkgoble · Jan 10, 2003, 02:22 AM

Not really. A database-like file system is important and helpful. But it doesn't replace having a good relational database. One is basically a way to handle meta-data about files in an optimized fashion. However typically you wouldn't want to use it for a general purpose database.

Actually if I recall BeOS did come with a full SQL database as part of the operating system. So it certainly *is* helpful.

undotwa · Jan 10, 2003, 03:34 AM

Originally posted by headbirth:
That's what Journaling is for! It would be easier to backup as well.

Anyway....is it O.K. to delete Apples Pictues, Movies, Etc.... folders? I thought do so caused havoc.

It's fine. Just don't delete library. Only one that is needed. Documents is used by outdated carbon applications (including AppleWorks) to store some data. Unless you don't use any apps like those you can delete docs. All you folders in home are automatically generated, so they will be recreated if any app needs it. Including Library (which will be regenerated at next app launch or login to store your settings.)

Maflynn · Jan 10, 2003, 08:52 AM

This database sounds good on paper but in application I think it will be as bad as the registry is on windows. I can't tell you how many times I've had to go in and edit the registry to get something to work. You will also need to rely on vendors updating the database in a consistant manner and that will never happen. Some vendor will find an undocumented feature, exploit it, apple changes that feature and the application or the os starts acting funny.
I think its a recipe for disaster.

Whats the next step putting DLLs in the same location so each application can overwrite them with older versions because haiving your dlls in one location makes sense its easier to manage.

Mike

jasong · Jan 10, 2003, 09:09 AM

What's with idea that a system-wide database would lead to dll hell? An iApp database is nothing like the Windows Registry (which is not used to store your data), and would do nothing to make your data more susceptible to an aberrant app than it is now.

That being said, a central DB in this case is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Address Book data is already open to anyone who cares to access it. The only reason why bookmarks aren't system-wide is political between the browser vendors. Your iTunes library is also open to anyone, and I am sure accessing iPhoto data is probably doable as well. If none of these are possible now, it is simply because Apple hasn't documented how to do it. And Millennium is right that there are way to many possibilities to account for to make this feasible.

I would like to see iChat use the BerkleyDB (the underlying database behind Address Book) for its log files, rather than making a new text file for each conversation session.

-- Jason

selkirk · Jan 10, 2003, 10:05 AM

One Database to rule them all, One Database to find them,
One Database to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

sadie · Jan 10, 2003, 12:34 PM

Actually, this is pretty much what BeFS did so wonderfully. If you think about it, databases like email, iTunes etc aren't really relational, they just have metadata. Yup, that word again.

Accessing the data in the Finder (or whatever Be called it) isn't really the best way - dedicated iApps are nice - but it was at least a useful demonstration of the possibilities.

I'd love a system where, for example, bookmarks were kept in a database and accessed by each browser through a standard UI. Each iApp domain (roughly speaking, each standard folder in ~) can have a similar database, tailored to that domain.

I suppose some of them are relational, but not very heavily. And I personally don't like SQL. But it would be quite nice if they provided a standard SQL interface for use by all apps - and a standard interface by which database apps could plug in underneath it. If nothing else, it would expose which database vendors used more standard SQL than others - the expensive ones in particular are notoriously badly behaved.

sadie · Jan 10, 2003, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Maflynn:
This database sounds good on paper but in application I think it will be as bad as the registry is on windows. I can't tell you how many times I've had to go in and edit the registry to get something to work.

1. The registry is a very different concept - as has already been pointed out, it's more like NetInfo. This is more like BeFS, and microsoft's upcoming OS-level SQL thingy.

2. The registry is just badly written. Is that any surprise? It doesn't prove the idea's bad, it's just the MS have done a bad implementation.