Subject Re: [IB-Architect] Just out of Interest....
Author Helen Borrie
At 05:33 PM 28-03-00 -0500, you wrote:
>From: "Andy Gibson" <andy@...>
>With regards to Interbase...what are defined as Users?
>Are users deemed to be the developers that integrate with the database and
>have most 'practical' interaction with it.
>Or are users the users of the software (i.e. Customers) that is integrated
>with the database, and have least 'practical' interaction with it?
>By 'practical' I mean hands on, working with the database as opposed to
>using a piece of software which works with the database for you.

Because of the embedded (proper semantics) nature of Interbase, the current
answer is "developers". It is their role to make the database invisible to
end users and as smooth as Bird's custard for the DBA. The idea is that
end-users never interact with the database except through the client software.

Do we want to change that? Do we have to change it, in order to "compete"
with the Access2000 interface to SQL Server?

I guess if I had to decide on the basis of what was good for the integrity
of the database, I'd say "Keep the embeddedness. No good will come of
giving users the keycode for the Red Button." I've recently finished a
year on a SQL Server project where users had that sort of access to the DB
via Access. It was not a pretty sight.

But who are "we" to dictate what kind of access customers should have to
their data? It's a serious question to look at, as IB moves out of its niche.

"Ask not what your free, open-source database can do for you,
but what you can do for your free, open-source database."