Jim Starkey wrote:

> 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.
>

Sorry Alexander I think Jim is right, interserver is meant to
act as a remote requestor for interclient so in fact it typically does NOT
reside on the same machine as the database. (Although this works too!)

It should reside on the interclient machine and resolv requests with
db url's like
"jdbc:interbase://machine_with_interserver/machine_with_interbase://some/path/to/file.gdb".

The whole point(as I have understood it) is to enable multi tiered data access
when the database
is remote. Is this not true?!

>
> 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.
>

Yes, absolutely and this is one reason why it can not be that
interserver should reside on same machine as interbase.
If this was the case and you wanted any kind of security then you would have
to place your complete "web server application with jdbc access" behind the
firewall.
Right?

//OLAS

>
> Jim Starkey
>
>
> 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/