Subject Re: [Firebird-Architect] Re: embedding Lua as procedural language
Author Jim Starkey
paulruizendaal wrote:
> Jim,
>> I believe that direct access to a database server from a browser is
>> the application architecture from hell. Just think about the
>> ramifications of 30 millions bots banging on your poor server. Too
>> horrible to even contemplate.
> ????
> You seem to have a fixation here: as far as I can recall nobody here
> has proposed anything of the kind, and this is the second time in this
> thread you begin about it.
> I suppose you misunderstood something earlier on. Let's try to set it
> straight. What in this thread caused you to think about hooking up
> browsers directly to databases?

I see the confusion. You said:

Hmmm... perhaps not:
With AIR and Silverlight going beyond JS1.5, the risk could be larger
than you think. However, for the foreseeable future 99% of the world
will think of JS as JS1.5 / ES3. You don't run on IE otherwise.

I interpreted "you" as meaning "me", and I have no interest in running
my JavaScript in IE. I mean, Ray is a friend and all that, but he can
write his own JavaScript for IE.

What you seem to have meant is that folks who write JavaScript for Web
pages have to deal with Microsoft extensions. That's certainly true.
Microsoft, Netscape, and Mozzila differences do drive Web developers a
little crazy, and the fact that all three report themselves as Netscape
even worse. But, at the moment, that's somebody else's problem.

I don't think there is any danger that the JavaScript specification will
ever invalidate existing standard conformant JavaScript. It's just not
something that language designers do.

Now that we've cleared up that you don't want me to give my
implementation to Microsoft, where were we?

Jim Starkey
President, NimbusDB, Inc.
978 526-1376

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