Subject | Re: [ib-support] Re: Firebird as embedded DB on Windows |
---|---|
Author | Raymond Kennington |
Post date | 2002-10-25T19:04:20Z |
Roman Rokytskyy wrote:
that one must set it up to use tcp/ip to do that.
Raymond Kennington
Programming Solutions
W2W Team B
>Are you sure it listens to a port when installed and used on a single machine? I think
> Ann,
>
> Sorry, I do not know about architecture list, please redirect me
> there. This answer I will post here.
>
> > Sorry, that came out sharper than I had intended. What I meant
> > is, "why is the absence of a server process important?" There
> > are lots of possible reasons - I'd like to know what problem we're
> > solving...
>
> We have an application that needs a storage with fast lookup by ID,
> BLOBs and few other simple SQL operations. This application takes
> input from one source, preprocesses it, and stores in database. It
> also accepts network connections and delivers parts of data in
> database to clients over the wire (PDA with network connection).
>
> This application is quite small (we have some cool C++ guys that
> tweak bits in the code :) ). We are looking for the possibility to
> provide a desktop version of this application for a mass market to
> target an offline scenario. This application will detect a PDA or
> phone on serial port, extract some data from the database and send
> same data as before over the serial connection to PDA or phone.
>
> Keyword here is "desktop version for mass market". Installing server
> on each desktop is not the best thing we can do:
>
> a) each desktop that happens to have a copy of that application
> listens on 3050; potential security flaw.
>
that one must set it up to use tcp/ip to do that.
> b) there might be a conflicts with network configuration (some otherSee (a).
> application listening on 3050).
>
> c) no administrator rights on WinNT/Win2k machine.FB1.5 has had a name change, so no conflict with IB.
>
> d) ... (I think I can find some other issues, like 'what if they have
> IB there', etc.)
>--
> So, in my opinion, embedded database (DLL or built-in) will fit our
> needs better. If that would be a Java application, I would select
> JDataStore (really impressive database)), but that's a native code.
>
> Hope this helps.
Raymond Kennington
Programming Solutions
W2W Team B