yarnc binary? π€
yarnc binary? π€
yarnc binary? π€
yarnc binary? π€
> verify their email address
Do we want this? Would it help? We can verify email addresses without ever storing it, like we do now. Just send the email, wait for the "token link" to be opened/verified, then activated account.
> verify their email address
Do we want this? Would it help? We can verify email addresses without ever storing it, like we do now. Just send the email, wait for the "token link" to be opened/verified, then activated account.
> verify their email address
Do we want this? Would it help? We can verify email addresses without ever storing it, like we do now. Just send the email, wait for the "token link" to be opened/verified, then activated account.
> verify their email address
Do we want this? Would it help? We can verify email addresses without ever storing it, like we do now. Just send the email, wait for the "token link" to be opened/verified, then activated account.
- It's another language to learn (SQL)
- It adds another dependency to your system
- It's another failure mode (database blows up, scheme changes, indexs, etc)
- It increases security problems (now you have to worry about being SQL-safe)
And most of all, in my experience, it doesn't _actually_ solve any problems that a good key/value store can solve with good indexes and good data structures. I'm just no longer a fan, I used to use MySQL, SQLite, etc back in the day, these days, nope I wouldn't even go anywhere near a database (for my own projects) if I can help it -- It's just another thing that can fail, another operational overhead.
- It's another language to learn (SQL)
- It adds another dependency to your system
- It's another failure mode (database blows up, scheme changes, indexs, etc)
- It increases security problems (now you have to worry about being SQL-safe)
And most of all, in my experience, it doesn't _actually_ solve any problems that a good key/value store can solve with good indexes and good data structures. I'm just no longer a fan, I used to use MySQL, SQLite, etc back in the day, these days, nope I wouldn't even go anywhere near a database (for my own projects) if I can help it -- It's just another thing that can fail, another operational overhead.
- It's another language to learn (SQL)
- It adds another dependency to your system
- It's another failure mode (database blows up, scheme changes, indexs, etc)
- It increases security problems (now you have to worry about being SQL-safe)
And most of all, in my experience, it doesn't _actually_ solve any problems that a good key/value store can solve with good indexes and good data structures. I'm just no longer a fan, I used to use MySQL, SQLite, etc back in the day, these days, nope I wouldn't even go anywhere near a database (for my own projects) if I can help it -- It's just another thing that can fail, another operational overhead.
- It's another language to learn (SQL)
- It adds another dependency to your system
- It's another failure mode (database blows up, scheme changes, indexs, etc)
- It increases security problems (now you have to worry about being SQL-safe)
And most of all, in my experience, it doesn't _actually_ solve any problems that a good key/value store can solve with good indexes and good data structures. I'm just no longer a fan, I used to use MySQL, SQLite, etc back in the day, these days, nope I wouldn't even go anywhere near a database (for my own projects) if I can help it -- It's just another thing that can fail, another operational overhead.
And I still don't: Search and Bookmarks are better tools for this IMO.
From a technical perspective however, we will not introduce any CGO dependencies into
yarnd -- It makes portability harder.Also I hate SQL π
And I still don't: Search and Bookmarks are better tools for this IMO.
From a technical perspective however, we will not introduce any CGO dependencies into
yarnd -- It makes portability harder.Also I hate SQL π
And I still don't: Search and Bookmarks are better tools for this IMO.
From a technical perspective however, we will not introduce any CGO dependencies into
yarnd -- It makes portability harder.Also I hate SQL π
And I still don't: Search and Bookmarks are better tools for this IMO.
From a technical perspective however, we will not introduce any CGO dependencies into
yarnd -- It makes portability harder.Also I hate SQL π
-I/--max-cache-items and -C/--max-cache-ttl:
$ yarnd --help 2>&1 | grep -E "\-(I|C)"
-I, --max-cache-items int maximum cache items (per feed source) of cached twts in memory (default 150)
-C, --max-cache-ttl duration maximum cache ttl (time-to-live) of cached twts in memory (default 336h0m0s)
π€£
-I/--max-cache-items and -C/--max-cache-ttl:
$ yarnd --help 2>&1 | grep -E "\-(I|C)"
-I, --max-cache-items int maximum cache items (per feed source) of cached twts in memory (default 150)
-C, --max-cache-ttl duration maximum cache ttl (time-to-live) of cached twts in memory (default 336h0m0s)
π€£
-I/--max-cache-items and -C/--max-cache-ttl:
$ yarnd --help 2>&1 | grep -E "\-(I|C)"
-I, --max-cache-items int maximum cache items (per feed source) of cached twts in memory (default 150)
-C, --max-cache-ttl duration maximum cache ttl (time-to-live) of cached twts in memory (default 336h0m0s)
π€£
-I/--max-cache-items and -C/--max-cache-ttl:
$ yarnd --help 2>&1 | grep -E "\\-(I|C)"
-I, --max-cache-items int maximum cache items (per feed source) of cached twts in memory (default 150)
-C, --max-cache-ttl duration maximum cache ttl (time-to-live) of cached twts in memory (default 336h0m0s)
π€£
-I/--max-cache-items and -C/--max-cache-ttl:
$ yarnd --help 2>&1 | grep -E "\-(I|C)"
-I, --max-cache-items int maximum cache items (per feed source) of cached twts in memory (default 150)
-C, --max-cache-ttl duration maximum cache ttl (time-to-live) of cached twts in memory (default 336h0m0s)
π€£