Why not just use hardware sandboxes? The cost of a cross process call is less for most things than the cost of a software VM that can run everything in-process.

Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: <IB-Architect@yahoogroups.com>
To: <IB-Architect@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 6:27 AM
Subject: [IB-Architect] Digest Number 460


> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> IB-Architect-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There is 1 message in this issue.
>
> Topics in this digest:
>
> 1. Re: Complex UDFs
> From: Jim Starkey <jas@...>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 10:32:42 -0500
> From: Jim Starkey <jas@...>
> Subject: Re: Complex UDFs
>
> At 02:46 AM 2/6/02 -0000, eumir_camara wrote:
> >I'm interested in creating Stored Procedures in a dll similar to how
> >UDFs are created. I've read somewhere that UDFs must be limited to
> >simple computations. I would like to know why that is the case
> >architecure wise and what might need to be done to accomodate my
> >requirements. thank you much.
> >
> >
>
> Lest anyone forget, I will put in my traditional plug for Java
> as the UDF, trigger, and stored procedure implementation language.
> Among other good and valuable considerations, Java runs in a
> squeeky clean sandbox.
>
> The problem with hard code is that it is hopelessly insecure.
> It's bad enough that badly written code can crash the server.
> It's much worse that well written code can compomise security,
> export data over the net, capture passwords, etc.
>
>
>
> Jim Starkey
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>