> :: but the embedded philosophy, if you like, is one which
> :: requires a host
> :: application to be running in order that the embedded server
> :: start (hence a
> :: dll).
>
> Why cant they be a shared host? Ie one dll starts up, it starts
> up the host.
> Other clietns start up, they share the host. If the first one shuts down,
> the others keep the shared memory alive. I assumed that's how
> classic works
> - but are you saying that classic has a master "Controller"?

dll don't start on their own - they need a host - look in task manager and
you will find more than one svchost.exe listed. That's the OS host for
services which are not standalone executables.

and yes classic has a master controller - it can't work any other way.

>
> :: Now what you are asking for would still need a host application to be
> :: started (or running) for these other PCs to start using the
> :: embedded server
>
> All applications would be running on the same PC. There is no need for
> network connectivity, or even file sharing of the DB over a network. Its
> simple embedded, multi user, single PC, local access.

then you have it already in the form of super server running as an
application instead of a service. Your app can start the SS superserver
application if it's not running already and never shut it down or shut it
down if it does all the tests required to check noone it connected. Either
way you need some brokering going on here. The classic daemon does this but
it remains running all the time as a service in itself. It just listens for
anyone wanting to connect.

>
> :: Cant see any other way.. unless you want to host an
> :: application which starts
> :: the embedded, if you create this, it's called a 3rd tier and
> :: you can let as
> :: many connections as like pass thru this using the embedded right now.
>

Alan