|Subject||Re: Vulcan services part II|
> > Can you provide good reasons why adding functionality toThis is also ok with me if we declare the extensions that we are going
> > dump/recreate from dump (that's what gbak is), validate database,
> > gather statistics and so on is a "bad thing"(tm)?
> My only objection is that's pretty far from the issue we're trying to
> solve. But if we'd agree on how to fix Vulcan first, then I'm ready to
> discuss a *proper* integration between utilities and the engine.
to implement a hack needed to get Vulcan released. These extensions
should explicitly be declared as deprecated from the very beginning,
so nobody dares to abuse them and force us to support the hack in the
However, I guess we need to do this discussion before the FB 3.0
release, since if we determine that SAPI in its current form cannot be
supported correctly, we have to deprecate that API in 3.0 already in
order to ensure that we can get rid of it in 5.0.