Dmitry Yemanov wrote:

>"Jim Starkey" <jas@...> wrote:
>
>
>>The fundamental problem with the external procedure proposal is that it
>>doesn't adequately address communication between the engine and the
>>external procedure facility. The primary issue is how the external
>>procedure performs database access.
>>
>>
>
>As it has been mentioned a few times, this part of the ESP proposal (engine
>callbacks) will be discussed a bit later. So far we concentrate our
>attention on the ESP communication API, SQL extentions and system catalogue
>changes. But I see you don't want to wait for the further explanations and
>prefer to claim anyone a dumb in advance. Nice way to have a discussion.
>
>
>
>

The issues can't be separated -- what is passed to an external procedure
facility must be sufficient for a procedure to do it's work, which begs
the question of engine callbacks. Architecture requires that you solve
all of the problems at the same time. If there isn't an acceptable
solution to the callback problem, the proposal is dead in the water. If
we're going to continue discussion of Roman's proposal, he has to
explain how a procedure can call back into the engine without breaking
the layering.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]