> -----Original Message-----
> From: Firebird-Architect@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Firebird-Architect@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Jim Starkey
> Sent: Martes, 04 de Octubre de 2005 11:42
>
> The XNet protocol handler doesn't do this, and assumes that any connect
> string should be should be passed to a local server over the XNet
> communication system. While I think we could retain this behavior and
> still honor most configurations, I think it's a liability that should be
> corrected. I'd like to add an arbitrary prefix for XNet bound connect
> strings in the same vein as the suggestion for an explicit prefix for
> in-process (embedded) engine access.

I've read several times your letter and can't understand your problem. Is it
purely academic or practical? In other words, if the local protocol is what
happens after all other known protocol syntaxes have been tried, why does it
need a special prefix? It's the last chance after the previous protocols
failed; if it can't open the file, too it will report failure.

You have said many times that before suggesting a solution, one should talk
about the problem. I can't see the big problem here.

C.