Subject Re: [IB-Architect] What will make InterBase more attractive?
Author Jim Starkey
At 04:46 PM 4/6/00 -0400, you wrote:
>At 4/6/00 04:35 PM (Thursday), Jim Starkey wrote:
>>Actually Interbase has had a parameter passing convention modelled
>>on VMS descriptors from the very beginning of UDFs (version 2?).
>>The probably is that languages other than C are incapable of handling
>>them. And, unlike VMS descriptors, Interbase descriptors carry
>>a null flag. Also, if I remember correctly, a descriptor could be
>>used to return a value.
>I've heard this said before but always wondered why the param passing
>flexibility it brought was never properly appreciated or continued.
>I believe the majority of UDFs implemented in the past few years have been
>written in C. The next most likely language in use is Object Pascal (a la
>Delphi). Both are equivalent in their capabilities for this sort of thing.
>Therefore, I am hopeful we can get this added Real Soon Now.

Hey, I'm the last person to argue that design of Interbase has been
properly appreciated. Ann thinks it's neat, though.

I suspect that somebody in the documentation world got lazy. Find
an old copy of the documentation and you're in fat city.

I wonder if Interbase could put out a full release by just advertising
features that have been forgotten?

I would very much like to see the current UDF mechanism phased out
in favor of Java. The sandbox model is attractive, but the (theoretical)
ability to install or replace UDFs while the server is running would
be absolutely wonderful. There are JVMs that handle dynamic class
replacement, but no open source ones. The main problem is efficiency
switching between C and Java without undue overhead. There are
also thread and garbage collection issues, but given a suitably
tame JVM...

Jim Starkey