On Thursday 02 August 2007 13:07, Dmitry Yemanov wrote:

> Roman Rokytskyy wrote:
> > I'd like to hear Dmitry's comments on this - he had some plans for
> > provider architecture, if I'm not mistaken...
>
> Hmmm. The only plan I had is to merge it into FB3 :-)
>
> Generally, I support the idea to implement external adapters as
> providers. And I agree with Jim that the PROVIDER clause is not
> necessary in this case, the y-valve poll will find the necessary
> implementation, provided that some special connection string
> syntax/prefix is introduced for external connections. This way, we don't
> need an external FB provider either.

Let's say it another way - who does not like that idea?

> There are some issues how to link
> internal and external (y-valve) handles to be able to deal with 2PC
> transactions, but it should be solvable.

That's are just technical details and they are for sure solvable.