At 11:48 AM 4/17/01 +0200, alexander sokolov wrote:

>
>
> Unfortunately, on the Windows platforms the Interserver must seat
> on the same machine as the Interbase. It is just listening to 3060 and
>"" 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.
>

Are you quite sure about this? I just did a search for the
string "localhost" in the 2.0 interserver and found nothing.

It appears that Interserver is properly layered on the standard
API, so other than possible problems of bitching about the
format of the URL, double indirect is certainly feasible. Perhaps
a small patch may be required to handle a node name on the
database string.

> 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.
>

No untrusted applet doing access to an Interbase database is
secure or could be made secure in the next year or more. Put
your database behind a fire wall.

Jim Starkey