Subject | Re: [Firebird-general] Embedded Engine |
---|---|
Author | Nando Dessena |
Post date | 2004-06-18T18:06:07Z |
Lester,
You probably don't need it.
You probably also have control on what gets installed in your deployment
machines and what doesn't. Not every application has this luxury.
L> So what is there to fix ;)
There's nothing wrond and nothing needs to be fixed. Something new
needs to be provided, though, in addition to what's already there. :-)
L> p.s. Paul - in a windows world I have no means of compiling firebird so
L> I can't build a special. So are all combinations going to have to be
L> provided as binaries. Removing the limitations on the build process
L> would be nice, but again - it works now - so why 'fix it' :)
Because good people pursue constant improvement. :-)
Ciao
--
Nando Dessena
mailto:nandod@...
>> [...] an embeddable *server* (as opposed to the current fbembed,L> I'm afraid I still don't get it :)
>> which is just an embeddable *engine*).
You probably don't need it.
You probably also have control on what gets installed in your deployment
machines and what doesn't. Not every application has this luxury.
L> So what is there to fix ;)
There's nothing wrond and nothing needs to be fixed. Something new
needs to be provided, though, in addition to what's already there. :-)
L> p.s. Paul - in a windows world I have no means of compiling firebird so
L> I can't build a special. So are all combinations going to have to be
L> provided as binaries. Removing the limitations on the build process
L> would be nice, but again - it works now - so why 'fix it' :)
Because good people pursue constant improvement. :-)
Ciao
--
Nando Dessena
mailto:nandod@...