At 07:51 PM 01-12-00 -0500, you wrote:

>At 11:38 AM 12/2/2000 +1100, Helen Borrie wrote:
> >I wrote:
> > >In the long run, the right thing to do with UDF's is to
> > >replace them (85% confidence).
> >
> >Oh? why? replace with what?
>
>Because they're horribly insecure. Yes, there's no doubt
>that we'd have to retain the mechanism for upward compatibility.
>The replacement is ill-defined, but I think it smells like coffee.

Excuse my density, but does this imply that the UDF-replacement would
require a jrt to be present in the server installation in order to make
the UDF-replacement available? And thus restrict the current host-language
options?

fwiw, I'm not preparing a case AGAINST this possibility, just wondering....

Helen


Helen

All for Open and Open for All
InterBase Developer Initiative · http://www.interbase2000.org
_______________________________________________________