Subject Re: [IB-Architect] RE: Architecture of interclient
Author Jim Starkey
At 11:32 PM 2/23/01 +1100, Mark O'Donohue wrote:
>> Doing an interface that talks directly to 3050 is certainly
>> feasible and probably not very difficult. The protocol is
>> currently defined in terms of XDR, but could/should have a
>> restatement as a straightforward line protocol. The more
>> difficult and expensive (in performance) is the mapping from
>> jdbc semantics to Firebird semantics. Maybe a careful study
>> would reveal that it's not too bad, maybe even preferred.
>That's encouraging to hear, and would be interesting to have a look at
>what the mappings would involve. But I suspect it's a bit of a pipe
>dream at the moment and think that interclient or in your case a proxy
>providing a type 3 solution is going to be our solution for a quite a while.

I've given this a little more thought. It's the way to go.
It's more that feasible, it probably isn't difficult. Solves
all sorts of portability and double copying problems. A
sufficiently good idea that I may steal it for Netfrastructure
(unlike Firebird, the Netfrastructure remote access is nowhere
near the critical path, so the protocol is simpler; also, I
gotten smarter).

Clever boy, Mark.

More on the rest of your post later.

Jim Starkey