> I think DB in the name is a little misleading due to there being no persistence (I assume?) but that is a small nitpick!
Yes, I feel a bit guilty about that part. When I started it the design looked more like a traditional key/value or durable stream database with real-time capabilities, but over time I realized that the use cases I had in mind usually didn’t actually need long-term persistence. The DB stuck, partly because it turns out if you add “db” as a suffix it’s a lot easier to find available package names and domains :). If it’s any consolation, I still do intend to support persistence eventually.
Thanks for the reply. Sounds like a neat bit of infrastructure. Well done for getting it done! I almost want to create a project as an excuse to use it ha ha! Also naming stuff is hard of course.
Yes, I feel a bit guilty about that part. When I started it the design looked more like a traditional key/value or durable stream database with real-time capabilities, but over time I realized that the use cases I had in mind usually didn’t actually need long-term persistence. The DB stuck, partly because it turns out if you add “db” as a suffix it’s a lot easier to find available package names and domains :). If it’s any consolation, I still do intend to support persistence eventually.