Jim Starkey wrote:

>It is less trouble for us to write and maintain a single scheduler than
>for a Windows user to hunt down, install, learn, and configure a third
>party cron.
>

If you say so... :-)

Windows has "at" and even a GUI front end for it, I have used it a few
times, it's 3rd party, but part of OS. I agree with you that if FB
relies on it's own is better then rely on 3rd party, my question is "Is
it top priority ?"

I could say the same for the encription of the wire protocol. Will be
good to have it internally, transparent and the user even don't know how
it works ? I will answer YES, but we could have it working now without
much effort with ZeBeDee.

>I, for own, have written an internal database task schedule
>but have yet to figure how cron work on Windows.
>
>I detest products that require other products to be installed to use
>them. That is the sort of things that causes users to remove installed
>evaluation copies and resume looking for databases.
>
>
>

Don't disagree with your opnion.

>That will be up to whatever Firebird developer decides it's worth
>doing. If there isn't one, it won't happen. Personally, I think it is
>wonderful that a dozen Netfrastructure applications back themselves up
>early every more and, as is almost always the case, prunes set of old
>backups to an establsihed date. I'm not very good at doing regular
>backups, so having friendly software that does really boring, thankless,
>but important chores is wonderful.
>
>I'm a strong proponent of active database, which is why you have
>triggers and events and lots of other good stuff. An internal scheduler
>is just the logical extension to were Firebird was going long before it
>was Firebird.
>
>
>

Ok, I like a lot the features you put (invented) on Interbase.

>>As I understand it will be a scheduler to run Stored Procedures, so we
>>will have a SQL command to do backups ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>I doubt we will ever have a SQL command to do backups. But a procedure
>that could invoke a library function is a different question.
>
>

In a completely diferent environment than the current UDF's right ?

>
>
>>With Java Stored Procedures the things will be really interesting, but
>>with the current PSQL no way to send e-mail, no way to interact with non
>>FB objects (files, system logs, ftp and so on).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>That's an argument in favor of Java procedures and triggers, not an
>argument against a scheduler. I've never liked PSQL and look forward to
>using a civilized language at the earliest possible opportunity.
>
>
>
>

Yep.

So the first task to have a internal scheduler, is to have a decent
internal language right ?

Just a pit that the first internal language was not Object Pascal, I am
far more familiar with it than with Java, but maybe this is just the
push I need to learn Java (that I started and stoped 2 times)

see you !

--
Alexandre Benson Smith
Development
THOR Software e Comercial Ltda
Santo Andre - Sao Paulo - Brazil
www.thorsoftware.com.br