"Martijn Tonies" <martijn@...> wrote in message
news:D09B3AA2992AD611AA5200AA004126EEDE43@SRV_BISIT...

> Can this be done? It would be great to have some more system views/virtual
> tables/whatever you call them in order to get these things done.

If you write a view, the view uses BLR like anything. Currently, BLR has no
capacity to interface with run-time internal structures. You know what it
means to create new BLR verbs: have Borland use the same verb and we have to
make sure people recompile based on the source code to get the proper BLR
verbs.

For example, when I created CURRENT_ROLE, I took a new BLR verb. How did
BORL implement ROWS, PERCENT and TIES? I don't have any idea. If they took a
new BLR verb, probably it's the same... but for another task tha me. I tried
to prevent that without any luck.

> Does the engine keep track or running requests? How easy can they
> (internally) be cancelled?

First, there're attachments. A db should hold a list of attachments to it,
each attachment associated to one user. Attachments are related to requests,
that are compiled statements. Currently, requests aren't shared among users.
With some objects, you have a tree hierarchy. With others, you have a N:N
relationship, probably.

C.
--
Claudio Valderrama C. - http://www.cvalde.com - http://www.firebirdSql.org
Independent developer
Owner of the Interbase® WebRing