|Subject||Re: [IB-Architect] Classic vs. superserver (long, very very long)|
On 8 Oct 2002 at 11:40, Ann W. Harrison wrote:
> Here's my take on the issue of classic vs. superserver.
Although I tend to agree with you, I would like point out few things that
you left from your consideration.
First, the classic is somewhat easier to port, and we were not very lucky
to make the super server work on some platforms. Well, it's nothing that
we can't really overcome, but it's definitely something that would slow
us down and make a resistance to a try to push SS. Also slight
differences in implementation of threads among platforms make things
harder, and it's very likely that SS will not be very reliable on some
platforms until we find a resolution, while classic would just work for
majority of users.
Next, it's true that SS has better potential to scale, but only a
fraction of users would benefit from it. Actually, one half of our
current userbase use FB as a personal database or as a workgroup server
up to ten simultaneous connections (all that mostly on Windows). While CS
(as is now) is ideal for embedded solutions, SS (as is now) is an
overkill for such solutions. We can't kill classic and do not offer an
*optimal* solution for embedded use with SS at the same time. You know
that people want classic for Windows, so we can't kill it completely as
an answer :)
So, although I would like to see only one architecture used (as anyone),
it's definitely a long run, that would require another codebase split.
For all your upto date Firebird and