Subject Re: RFC: The Server client (about Gateways...)
Author m_theologos
--- In, "Ann W.
Harrison" <aharrison@...> wrote:
> m_theologos wrote:
> >
> > We saw in the poll organized by foundation that the inter-
> > queries was in a relatively high position in the users
> > (Also, I need this feature, but for the time being I simulate it).
> >
> There's no theoretical problem with providing cross database
> There have been designs for it for decades. There is a practical
> problem however, which is optimization. We currently optimize to
> minimize the number of records in the intermediate data sets.

Agree. But I think that is much more important to have _now_ simple
(not simplistic) working features with a good field of improvement
(in order to attract users), rather than to have a perfect feature
after, let's say, 3 years. (See also the Paul Ruizendaal's message)
IMHO, perhaps is better to support in the next version the most
common case, which is, I think, the most simplest ie. all databases
locally on a superserver architecture, eliminating in this way the
communication problems and also having the advantages which Adriano
dos Santos Fernandes pointed out (the same address space, easy to
find structs aso.).

> For
> cross server joins, we'd also have to figure in the communication
> time and latency and they have always been a moving target.

That's why I proposed an abstract layer for the communication
protocol. Also I think that the users know that they will have a
latency there. And, from my POV, a program which will do many cross
server calls on a slow connection perhaps has a design problem.

> Just as an aside, I'd rather not use the word GATEWAY for
> between Firebird servers. We've traditionally used that word to
> describe bridges to foreign databases. At various times there have
> been gateways to Rdb/VMS and Oracle.

Thank you for your correction. I knew it but I didn't found a more
appropiate word to describe it.

> Regards,
> Ann

All best wishes,

m. Th.