If Superserver worked on SMP would there be any reason for keeping classic?

Are there any environments that just won't support Superserver?

For my needs: >350 concurrent users - so classic is out, but SMP would be a
great benefit.

JAC.

----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Starkey <jas@...>
To: <IB-Architect@egroups.com>
Sent: 30/mm/2000 3:20 PM
Subject: [IB-Architect] SuperServer vs. Classic


> At 12:44 PM 5/28/00 +1000, Jan Mikkelsen wrote:
> >
> >All this applies to superserver, of course. Classic should just be taken
> >into the woods and shot.
> >
>
> This is the single most difficult and important question facing future
> development. Among the issues:
>
> 1. SuperServer only works on threaded platforms.
> 2. Security is hopeless in Classic
> 3. The conditionalization of the code makes ongoing maintenance
> of two branches highly problematic.
> 4. Support both on the same machine borders on impossible
> 5. Given an abstract workload, neither is a clear winner.
> Given a specific workload, one will generally outshine
> the other.
> 6. Asking the using at installation time which to install
> time is problematic -- how could a new use possible make
> an intelligent decision.
>
> An argument can me made -- but I haven't convinced Charlie -- that
> removing Classic will speed up SuperServer (algorithms are now chosen
> that work well in both), and that speeding up SuperService is necessary
> to kill off Classic. Chicken, egg.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Jim Starkey
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
> Remember the good 'ol days
> http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/4/_/830676/_/959696797/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> IB-Architect-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>
>
>