Svein Erling Tysvær wrote:

>
>>... but Firebird and Netfrastructure
>>are architecturally incompatible. An attempt to integrate the
>>technologies would be unlikely to meet the goals of either project.
>
>
> Does this mean that the architecture of MySQL and Netfrastructure are
> more compatible, or that Jim will be working to make MySQL more
> compatible with Netfrastructure? I take it that MySQL and
> Netfrastructure will not continue to be two completely separate products?
>

Firebird is an integrated system and blr based. MySQL - by
design or by default - is divided into front and back ends,
with few constraints on the architecture of the backend.
The fact that they work with SleepyCat which has no data
abstraction or SQL is evidence of the degree of separation
between the front and back ends.

Netfrastructure is quite different from Firebird. Databases
in Netfrastructure databases are multi-version in memory, but
back versions of records are never written to disk. During a
commit, changes are written to a log file with separate
thread to move it into the database, so there's a recovery
process after a crash. And, of course, it's not blr based.

Even assuming that there was universal agreement to move
Firebird to Netfrastructure, there's so much legacy blr
dependency that the move would take years.

Hope that helps...


Regards,


Ann