>
> I think it is a bit too early to discuss what features should be implemented
> in the next version but I am among the ones who want more functions in the
> core engine because adding " not well known " third parties UDFs can be seen
> a bit like risky assembly.
>

I agree for the "too early" issue but I prefer the "UNIX approach interbase has
for adding functionality.
Without that it will end up like Oracle. Too havy,to complex, to large.
e.g I have an IB database on an NT (replicated on Linux) with ~2000 objects (60
tables more than 120SPs hundred of trigers) with an 333 Pentium 256MB memory and
2x13GB disks (NT) and 450 Pentium 256MB memory 2x10 GB disks (Linux which also
acts as a Gateway for the Internet)
To achive the same functionality / performane with Oracle I needed an 1GB memory
333 Pentium with a 6disk RAID array (NT) not to mention the DBA knowledge

>
> Don't you think that people would prefer a functionnality be implemented by
> Interbase rather than by a company they never heard of before ?
>

UDF is a way to add the functionality you need the moment / case you needed. You
don't have to "carry" a bulk of functions if you don't really need them just in
case

John Pasvantis (JP)

>
> Brice VIDAL
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You have a voice mail message waiting for you at iHello.com:
> http://click.egroups.com/1/2377/3/_/_/_/953675678/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> IB-Architect-unsubscribe@onelist.com