>
> David Trudgett wrote:I would have said that Interserver needs to run on

the

> same machine as
>
> > InterBase, and that InterBase needs to be SuperServer, and not classic.
>
> Why these "needs"?
> What's the use of interserver if interbase has to be on the same machine?
> I can not see that we have ANY use of interbase at all if
> we have to run the database on same machine as interserver/interclient.

Unfortunately, on the Windows platforms the Interserver must seat
on the same machine as the Interbase. It is just listening to 3060 and
"translates" to localhost:3050. Of course, InterClient can be anywhere and
talk to InterServer using 3060.
In this case you can consider InterServer as a part of InterBase.

One obvious disadvantage of this is that if we want to access the database
using an untrusted applet we have to keep whole chain
(webserver:80, interserver:3060 interbase:3050) on the same machine which is
not
an excellent idea in term of security.

Alexander

>
> SS is "only" how processes/cache are handled within interbase and
> i don't think is has anything to do with where you can place the
> client/database. It is possible though, that SS versions has other
> code that solves problems when communicating with interserver
> but that has nothing to do with the SS concept. Does it?
>
> These "needs" makes true distributed computing with multi tiered database
> access impossible. No?
>
> //OLAS
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> IB-Java-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>