Re: sqlite database
On Mon 02 Jul 2018 at 20:39:33 (+0100), Joe wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 14:02:31 -0500
> David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Mon 02 Jul 2018 at 19:50:35 (+0200), deloptes wrote:
> > > David Wright wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, it's always difficult to know what the OP¹ is really after.
> > > > The ?first time this came up (17 months ago), "minimal" was in
> > > > the subject line, sqlite was looked at favourably, but the fact
> > > > that it had a web interface was seen as a downer, perhaps because
> > > > the word "web" appeared to contradict "no networking".
> > >
> > > But sqlite does have only CLI interface - the rest is not
> > > mandatory.
> >
> > I agree, and the OP¹ has frequently said that CLIs are ok.
> > But the OP¹ voraciously consults HOWTOs, and said:
> >
> > "Many presume a WEB-SERVER is involved."
> >
> > I don't know what others glean from this, but to me it sounds as if
> > the mention of "web" taints the software somehow, perhaps
> > subconciously.
>
> Rightly so. If you don't currently run a web server, then needing to do
> so just to administer an unrelated application would seem illogical,
> not to mention annoying.
I wrote "any *mention* of web" might put off the OP¹. Nothing about
*needing to*. The fact that many *want to* makes it a popular topic
for HOWTOs, but it's not a need.
> Today, the vast majority of database applications also involve a web
> server, so there's usually no extra overhead in using it for database
> administration. But that's not true for everyone.
Virtually every PC runs a browser of some sort, and almost all
browsers contain a database application. But most people aren't
running a web server on their PC.
Now, many electronic devices of all varieties are sold with extremely
perfunctory built-in interfaces and require an external browser to
exploit their full functionality (see below). Most of us use one: our
router. But the web *server* is in the device, not in people's PC.
> And if you have an application for a database management system of some
> kind, then that application itself is surely the main method of
> manipulating the DBMS. You need very little extra administration,
> particularly in Debian where databases, users and privileges are
> generally set up automagically. This is why I'm not particularly fluent
> with the mariadb command line: I might use it two or three times a
> year, and I always have to read up on it again when I do.
With sqlite, the commandline is not something that you're forced to
use to administrate the DB (there's no such concept anyway); it's a
choice, just one method of accessing it. You could use Debian's
sqlitebrowser exclusively, or one of the language bindings,
according to preference.
The fact is that the model:
Device in a clean shiny box PC/Mobile
_________________________________________ __________________
| | WiFi | |
| functionality ↔ sqlite db ↔ web server | ←----→ | Browser |
|________________________________________| |________________|
is popping up everywhere nowadays, so it's hardly surprising that
some tutorials focus on this, and the same holds for models involving
client/server DBs too, so more tutorials on that. It's popular,
but it's not a requirement.
I googled simple sqlite example and one of the top hits was
http://www.sqlitetutorial.net/
Looking that over, I can't see anthing to put the OP¹ off². For
someone coming from dBASEII and wanting to learn about modern
Relational DataBase Management Systems, it would seem a perfect
fit (to repeat myself). I can't see the desirability of the
client/server model in the OP¹'s situation as it just adds a
layer of administrative complexity for no payback. Perhaps I'm
reading the wrong meaning of their "minimal". Still awaiting
counterexamples.
² OTOH for this post, the diagram above might be offputting.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: