I don't. FbEmbebed should be just an embeded server. That's the reason it
exists. This should be as small as possible, without any kind of client.

This was discussed already in firebird-devel: take a look to see the
reasons. :-)

Artur

----- Original Message -----
From: "Boguslaw Brandys" <brandys@...>
To: <ib-support@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ib-support] Why fbembed.dll ?


> 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
>
> ----- 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/
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>