On 15 Oct 2002 at 17:26, Jim Starkey wrote:

> At 04:58 PM 10/15/02 -0400, pschmidt@... wrote:
> >
> >No insult intended, just in 20 years of working with computers, and
> usually software,
> >I have seen too many times where trying to bend new code to work with an
> old data
> >structure often means something doesn't work the way it should, and
> efficiency goes
> >down the commode. What I mean by PITA factor is the obviousl PITA of
> trying to
> >make a new SQL only compiler work with a data structure that was designed
> for
> >BLR.
> >
>
> The major change be replacing the DSQL meta-data modules with the
> engine meta-data. The replacing the BLR generator with something
> that generates execution tree should be close to a no-brainer.
> Probably the biggest problem is recognition that it would be
> criminal to do the switcheroo without implementing a compiled
> statement cache. Happily, the runtime world was designed to
> support multiple instantiates of a compiled request (runtime
> objects contain offsets into an "impure" area), so most of the
> effort will be bookkeeping.

I think the compiled statement cache is something that has been discussed before,
maybe a good question is what is BLR and how does it work?