At 07:07 PM 6/5/03 -0300, Daniel Rail wrote:

>So, basically what you are saying is that it would take a lot of
>thinking and conceptual design before implementing the so called
>beast, just to make sure that it is well understood.

Bingo.

>And, probably because a minority of the programmers using Firebird, it
>would be unwise to implement it as an integral part of the database,
>but maybe as a plugin for those who want it. This is just to keep the
>engine small, unless it would be to compile 2 versions of each
>Firebird architecture (SS and CS) for a total of 4, as if 2 wasn't
>enough already.

It shouldn't be part of the engine at all, but a component parallel to the
engine in the Y-valve architecture, calling back to the Y-valve for all
sub-database access.

>Ah well, maybe in a later version of FB(maybe 3.0 or later). I would
>prefer to see SMP support in FB 2.0 SS than cross-database support.

And now you understand why it has been implemented yet. There's always
been something of higher priority waiting to be done.



Jim Starkey