On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:32:37 -0500, Jim Starkey wrote:

>I think it would make a great more sense to configure each remote
>connection type as separate providers each each can have separate
>configuration parameters. This would allow, for example, to have
>multiple tcp providers with different ports

The list of tcp ports available in tcp providers will stay
in server, right?

>for either different
>database or included in a single list of providers to be polled, one by
>one, in the order specified.

I particularly think that providers could be asynchronous (if
possible), so very
few CPU will be used to answer the provider call and can be used
somewhere else. (I particularly doesn't use polling unless I NEED to
use this).

>It would also mean that an administrator
>could restrict the protocols available by dropping the unwanted from the
>list of providers for the fallback database definition.

Great.