| Subject | Re: [firebird-support] Database files on a remote mapped drive development |
|---|---|
| Author | Helen Borrie |
| Post date | 2009-09-04T01:44:08Z |
At 02:11 AM 4/09/2009, Thomas Clarke wrote:
For (a), access by clients to databases (note the plural) on a database server is intrinsic to the client/server architecture. Data are accessed through client connections to *databases* across a network transport, not by accessing "files" in shared locations. A Firebird database doesn't even have to be in a file at all (except on Windows, of course!)
For (b), the Firebird server (not humans) manages the data in the databases. It gets disk space from the operating system as and when it requires it. Beyond that, the operating system has no notion of what data might be where inside that space. The engine keeps an internal inventory that the filesystem doesn't understand. So - get these people to understand that a Firebird database is nothing like an Access one, which is just a specialised folder containing a mass of files.
Forget RemoteFileAbility: it's not what you need. But let's be clear that a "read-only database" is NOT a database file with the read-only file attribute set on. It's a database that has been made read-only by having its "read only" attribute set on by the gfix utility.
./heLen
>Hi all,The first pointers would be get your people to understand that (a) Firebird is client/server software...so turn around the other way and recognise that users (clients) access databases, not "database files"; and (b) Firebird is a relational DATABASE management system, not an Access wannabe.
>I'm new to Firebird so please forgive me if I appear naive in any way.
>I have been charged by my company to modify if necessary Firebird 2 so
>that we ma be able to access database files on the network.
>The safety issues listed wherever the issue is discussed (ie. the
>database gettting corrupted under such circumstances) would not seem to
>apply as there will be no writing to the database. It's purely read
>only.
>I tried to active RemoteFileOpenAbility in Firebird.conf but that did
>not help.
>I am therefore forced to consider modifying the source of the
>application.
>I would greatly appreciate it if anyone out there could give me a few
>pointers to help me on my way.
For (a), access by clients to databases (note the plural) on a database server is intrinsic to the client/server architecture. Data are accessed through client connections to *databases* across a network transport, not by accessing "files" in shared locations. A Firebird database doesn't even have to be in a file at all (except on Windows, of course!)
For (b), the Firebird server (not humans) manages the data in the databases. It gets disk space from the operating system as and when it requires it. Beyond that, the operating system has no notion of what data might be where inside that space. The engine keeps an internal inventory that the filesystem doesn't understand. So - get these people to understand that a Firebird database is nothing like an Access one, which is just a specialised folder containing a mass of files.
Forget RemoteFileAbility: it's not what you need. But let's be clear that a "read-only database" is NOT a database file with the read-only file attribute set on. It's a database that has been made read-only by having its "read only" attribute set on by the gfix utility.
>That question is off-topic in this forum. Depending on what you want to work on, go back to firebird-devel for advice about hacking the engine code in VS; or use the firebird-net-provider list for stuff related to writing dot-net clients.
>BTW: I'm working on a Windows XP box with VS.NET and 2005 installed.
>One of the main obstacles I've found is that there seems to be no easy
>way to step through the code in debug mode in Visual Studio.
>Do you know a way to set this up?
./heLen