Subject | Re: Re[2]: [ib-support] Why fbembed.dll ? |
---|---|
Author | Boguslaw Brandys |
Post date | 2003-05-07T15:13:37Z |
Nando,
I fully agree with You ! :-) Fbembed should at least have run-time linking
to gds32.dll to decide if remote or local connection use. If gds32.dll won't
be available current behaviour is correct .
Best Regards
Boguslaw
I fully agree with You ! :-) Fbembed should at least have run-time linking
to gds32.dll to decide if remote or local connection use. If gds32.dll won't
be available current behaviour is correct .
Best Regards
Boguslaw
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nando Dessena" <nandod@...>
To: <ib-support@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 4:37 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [ib-support] Why fbembed.dll ?
> Paul,
>
> PS> The idea is that it should be an either-or ideology either you have a
> PS> full server and client, or you have embedded, rather then some
mish-mash
> PS> of both. Having some databases on a central server and others local,
is
> PS> asking for trouble.
>
> I respectfully disagree. I don't know how are you going to back up
> your statement, but I can surely envision situations in which a local
> embedded server could be of use *together* with a remote one.
>
> PS> I think what should be the goal though, is that when you install FB1.5
or
> PS> above, that TWO libraries should be accessable, fbembedded.lib and
> PS> fbclient.lib, so that the application developer can decide, at the
linker
> PS> stage.
>
> I'd rather link to fbembed only, and let *it* decide, based on the
> connection string. This implies that it should contain the client
> library (being a client to itself). This would be a) simple b) sound
> and c) flexible.
>
> PS> I would rather have two .exe files, then adding a lot of extra
> PS> baggage to the fbembedded.dll file.
>
> I guess it's a matter of taste. Your solution precludes linking to
> both an embedded and a remote server from the same application, just
> to save a few hundreds KBs at best. I don't think it's worth it.
>
> PS> After all, embedded is likely to run
> PS> on lower end machines, so adding an extra couple of MB to the
foot-print
> PS> may not be a good idea.
>
> couple of what? :-)
> I think only the remote interface would be needed. I'm not able to
> quantify, but as I said I'd guess tens or hundreds of KBs at most.
>
> Ciao
> --
> Nando mailto:nandod@...
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> ib-support-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>