At 11:43 AM 18/06/2004 -0700, you wrote:

> > In this case your application can't use FB because FB is an SQL
> > server and, despite of common opinion, _requires_ DBA, though FB DBA
> > is easier to train that Oracle one.
>
>
> > Then you must not use DBMS in your application. :-)
>
> > Did you try to get sources and find out origin of the error message
> > you got? It took me less than five minutes to find out that the
> > message appears if server has found a window. If you read
> > configuration file beforehand, you have to remember
> > CreateInternalWindow parameter at once.
> > Is this too complex for you?
>
> > "Use appropriate tools for appropriate tasks." You are going to
> > break this rule. In Russian, I'd say that you are spiteful goblin to
> > yourself.
> >
> > SY, Dimitry Sibiryakov.
> >
>
>
>Agghhh. Responses like that make my blood boil.

Granted, Dmitry was a little forceful in his response - but I hope you took
on board the points he was making...sure, you can run multiple servers on a
machine, if you know what you're doing. The point is that splatting a
client/server installation out to an unsuspecting world via an unsupported
Shareware is, you must admit, pretty unprofessional.

Unless you distribute your software as an embedded application, of course
it is potentially going to step on an existing Firebird or IB server. It
behoves you - as the developer - to document the implications precisely,
provide bomb-proof instructions to cover the options (multiple) and
(effectively) train a DBA.

>In the last few weeks the topic
>of multi-instance/security has been mentioned a few times and it looks like a
>lot of people are interested/need this.

As DS pointed out, if you're running a server, someone has to administer
it. In Firebird's current security architecture, that "someone" is
SYSDBA. Future releases will change the security model to make it possible
to shut SYSDBA out of databases where you don't want him to poke - but that
is then, and now is now. But it won't change *your* obligation, as
developer and distributor of your software, to package your product in a
way that ensures that the purchaser understands what is involved.

You can DO multiple servers with Fb 1.5 but not with 1.0. At this point,
it can be more or less transparent with the Windows embedded server. Any
other multi-server situation is DBA stuff.

>However, most replies to questions about
>this topic ranged between flames and direct attacks on individuals asking the
>question.

Generally, flames fight flames. Dumb questions are perfectly OK in the
forums: we all need to ask dumb questions. However, I know myself how
infuriating it is to spend time responding to a question, only to have the
person persistently reject the response and argue that "Oracle supports it"
or "but I can do this in MySQL". We're all volunteers, not public servants
to be kicked by a rude and demanding public.

>Please remember, this is a help and support mail list and not
>ignorant/flame/zealot list.

You need to understand that this is a SUPPORT list, not a forum for
hammering what you think is wrong with the software. If you use the
support list this way, you make a lot of unwanted noise, that gets in the
way of others who are trying to find solutions. Expect to be flamed for
it. There are other forums where you can raise your (preferably
constructive) ideas about how things *should* be.

Fortunately, most people post politely and pursue their threads with focus
and a genuine desire to get their heads around their problems. A receptive
attitude and a willingness to supply intelligent problem descriptions go a
long way toward getting good solutions.

>And btw, wasn't Borland hyping IB6 as self tuning and that it didn't need
>a DBA
>to run?

IB 6 didn't support multiple running servers at all. Furthermore, running
multiple servers from shareware packages is not "tuning".

Despite Dmitry's comments, there are many thousands of sites out there that
are running Firebird and IB without a DBA - because, indeed, if you as a
developer do a proper job in deploying and supporting your software and
providing the right buttons to push, AND the users do actually push the
buttons, then the database server will "just work".

You're talking about an entirely different set of conditions, though. You
demand the capability to deploy a client/server system that magically, with
no input from you and no knowledge at the site, installs transparently on
any computer, from the kids' Playstation to the enterprise server, and
behaves like a piece of self-contained desktop software. At the same time,
you want databases to be accessible in undefined ways by other applications.

To summarise Dmitry's points, no, you can't do that with Firebird
currently. You *could* build your own range of custom servers to cover
your user field (even "idiots", with some limitations!) You could work
through the current options and deploy a range of installation packages to
suit the variety of requirements you want to cater for. You could go over
to firebird-architect and argue your case for features you want.

As for deploying *any* database server for "idiot users", forget
it. Somebody at the site needs to know what s/he's doing when running
server software. If you offer it for deployment, you DO have a duty to
make your customers aware of what they've got and how to make it work.

/heLen