Subject Re: [IB-Architect] Spatial objects in IB
Author Brice VIDAL
----- Original Message -----
From: Markus Kemper <mkemper@...>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [IB-Architect] Spatial objects in IB

> From: "Markus Kemper" <mkemper@...>
> > I don't think that adding functions to the core engine will slow it.
> > in a 1 mega library you can add a lot of functionalities.
> I agree but, I think that one of our strengths in the market
> is footprint and that we ought to be careful when adding things
> that will grow it.

I totally agree with you and think that interbase should be modular. For
example people requirind a very little foot print would have to supply just
the core engine and the others who don't mind or want all the
functionalities would just have to add a library or two (provided by ISC).
This way the engine itself would deal with the libraries and decide wether
he can treat a query or not. This way interbase would have many more
capabilities for those who want and still support UDFs without annoying
people who want a tiny interbase. To sum up it would be like moving some
UDFs from the database level to the engine level.

> > I think it is a bit too early to discuss what features should be
> > in the next version but I am among the ones who want more functions in
> > core engine because adding " not well known " third parties UDFs can be
> > a bit like risky assembly.
> I disagree. Now is a great time to start taking about these
> things. 6.0 is in stone from a feature perspective. Let's
> start shaping the future.
> RE: UDFs vs core functions
> I think there is a balance here. I'd like to see more 'basic'
> functions in the engine. My top 10 (in order) are:
> str_to_blob()
> blob_to_str()
> sub_str()
> r_trim()
> sqrt()
> l_trim()
> str_len()
> trim()
> lower()
> round()
> > Don't you think that people would prefer a functionnality be implemented
> > by Interbase rather than by a company they never heard of before ?

We can think of many more but I really think tat these one should be in the
next release.

> Perhaps we could encourage projects in the community to
> develop targeted open source UDF libraries (eg. math, spatial,
> multi-media, encryption, etc.) and InterBase Corp could
> certify, endorse and support them officially.

This is exactly what interbase needs.