On 13 Oct 2002 at 10:46, Jim Starkey wrote:

> Indeed, sir, indeed! But don't stop there! Cache the figgin'
> compiled statements! Do it! Do it! Do it!
>
> When I wrote Interbase, part of the world was Quel, part SQL, and
> part Datalanguage derivative. BLR was lingua franca. 'Tis time
> to note that SQL won and deserves an otherwise "unfair" advantage
> with engine integration. Just abandon the BLR intermediary and
> have the DSQL compiler generating runtime execution trees. It
> would be smaller, faster, simpler, consume less memory, allow
> sharing of compiled requests, be more maintainable, lay track,
> and console old people.

Wouldn't ripping out BLR be a big ugly job? I haven't looked at the current source,
but I would think that it would mean re-writing the guts. Perhaps it's getting like an
old car, we are replacing the engine, transmission, and doing a whole whack of
body work, maybe it's time for a new car. I wonder if maybe we should use the
current implementations as the source for building a specification document on a
whole new engine, one that use fine grained locking multi-threading, SQL as it's
native language, and runs UDF's in a sandbox. We can keep the SQL syntax, and
disk structure and a good chunk of the API's.