Subject | Re: [Firebird-Architect] Database Capabilities |
---|---|
Author | Jim Starkey |
Post date | 2005-07-22T14:55:50Z |
Nando Dessena wrote:
support it, but it is so ugly. I'd rather see it wither and die. When
somebody has an idea that would otherwise go into the services area, I
suggest we consider the issue ab inito.
--
Jim Starkey
Netfrastructure, Inc.
978 526-1376
>BTW, I think this discussion should also consider the future of theBackward compatibility is the cost of doing business, so we have to
>Services API as Firebird currently implements it. I am aware it
>doesn't conform to the original philosophy of InterBase but since it's
>there I'd like to know if Firebird is going to keep on supporting it
>and extending it or phase it out in favor of something else. In the
>former case, it seems to me that attaching to the services manager is
>the obvious (=coherent with what we already do for similar things)
>path to get database-independent information.
>
>
>
>
support it, but it is so ugly. I'd rather see it wither and die. When
somebody has an idea that would otherwise go into the services area, I
suggest we consider the issue ab inito.
--
Jim Starkey
Netfrastructure, Inc.
978 526-1376