-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Starkey <jas@...>
Date: Thursday, April 06, 2000 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: [IB-Architect] UDF replacement: native shared libraries vs.
Java

>It probably could be done. But that isn't the point. UDF's have
>always been a liability from the perspective of reliability and
>security. Loading an executing an arbitrary library, even one
>more or less vetted by the DBA, is scary. A UDF can write over
>memory, break security, trash records, corrupt databases, and
>anything else it's evil little heart desires. The concept of
>a UDF exchange is unthinkable. Who in their right mind is going
>to stick unknown code in the guts of their mission critical
>database server? Certainly not somebody smart enough to use
>Interbase.

I know I will run code *I* write on IB. UDFs are a great way to add
functionality to an existing database; I certainly wouldn't want to
recompile my database server because I want an extra function.

As a programmer/DBA, I don't mind assuming responsibility for what I do. I
won't be sticking unknown code into my db server; I'll be sticking in my
own, very-well-tested UDFs. I know I would be less happy if I couldn't
extend my database in a reasonable manner as I see fit.

Marcelo Lopez Ruiz