On 24/07/2005 10:01 GMT+1, Dmitry Yemanov wrote:

>I'd prefer to get the server/engine capabilities via the Services API and
>the local capabilities - via isc_database_info() call. This sounds logical
>to me. I know that isc_database_info() was designed to return the
>server/engine info as well, but there was no server-level API that time. Now
>we have a choice.
>
>

The way I read Jim on this is that the overall architecture does not
necessarily have a 'server'. What sense has the 'Services API' or
generally speaking 'server attachment' concept when there is NO 'server'
implied (when for instance the whole thing is statically linked within
the application executable) ?

--
Olivier Mascia