Leyne, Sean wrote:

> Dmitry,
>
>
>> In Vulcan, we may have a few engine providers within a single
>> installation.
>>
>
> I have always wondered about the real need for such an
> installation/setup.
>

Simple. You have a development system and would like to install a beta
without disabling the previous release. On a database by database basis
you backup and restore the database. Nothing in the client changes. Slick?

This was the way things worked before Borland trashed the architecture.
It works extremely well and users love it to pieces.

> To have one dispatcher with all the configuration details for all
> engines makes the notion of developers being able to easily deploy
> products to end-users might have multiple products from separate
> developers difficult to understand.
>

That, my dear Sean, is what architecture is all about: Making the pieces
fit together.

In this case, the dispatches doesn't (and doesn't need to) know squat
about the providers. Just ask 'em, in the prescribed order, "can you
attach this". Then the magic starts.

> The current Vulcan approach, IMHO, is only suitable for selected
> installs where there is someone (sysdba) responsible for the management
> of the configuration.
>

No, all it requires is that Firebird developers understand the
architecture before they decide to trash it.