Toby
Is what you've done publicly available?
Regards
Pete
--
Peter Hearty peter.hearty@lutris.com
Lutris Technologies (UK) http://www.lutris.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tobias Downer" <toby@iglou.com>
To: <instantDB@enhydra.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 9:17 PM
Subject: Re: InstantDB: Re: instantdb evaluation
>
> I take it this is what RmiJdbc essentially does? It forwards each call
> from the JDBC RMI client to the JDBC driver running on the server.
>
> Peter, have you considered extending the IDB JDBC driver so it natively
> works over TCP/IP? Supporting scrollable result sets remotely is a very
> cool feature. If you were to look into natively supporting
> client/server, you would benefit greatly if the communication protocol
> worked at a lower level than the JDBC method calls. You would lower the
> amount of network traffic. Only the 'execute' methods in Statement and
> some of the metadata query methods would cause traffic. ResultSet data
> could be cached on the client. And valuable resources would be freed on
> the server.
>
> You'd be surprised at how simple a low level JDBC communication protocol
> can be. We got it down to just four commands from client to server
> (EXECUTE QUERY, GET PART OF A RESULT, DISPOSE RESULT, CLOSE) from client
> to server. The metadata queries could also be performed with EXECUTE
> QUERY commands, and the updateable result set functionality can be
> achieved by translating them into 'INSERT' and 'UPDATE' SQL statements.
>
> Toby.
>
> Peter Hearty wrote:
> >
> > Robert
> >
> > That's an interesting idea. I've often wanted to have a go at a
lightweight
> > server for IDB. Before discussing that further though, I'd just like to
> > point out that there's the RmiJdbc driver available that already lets
you
> > use IDB in client-server mode. See
> >
> > http://instantdb.enhydra.org/software/documentation/network.html
> >
> > for details.
> >
> > The problem I've always had with writing a dedicated server for IDB was
it's
> > sheer size. You're quite right - it's a very *easy* thing to do (very
little
> > actual thinking involved), but wouldn't it take a lot of time and
effort? If
> > all you wanted to do was send SQL up to be executed then the server
would
> > indeed be very small. Granted, that 90% of the time that's probably all
you
> > do want to do, but java.sql has hundreds, if not thousands, of methods
that
> > would have to be implemented. Wouldn't that involve inventing a line
> > protocol to cope with all of these methods?
> >
> > If you've got a really easy way to avoid all that work I'd be *really*
keen
> > to hear more about it.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Pete
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to majordomo@enhydra.org
> with the text "unsubscribe instantdb" in the body of the email.
> If you have other questions regarding this mailing list, send email to
> the list admin at owner-instantdb@enhydra.org.
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to majordomo@enhydra.org
with the text "unsubscribe instantdb" in the body of the email.
If you have other questions regarding this mailing list, send email to
the list admin at owner-instantdb@enhydra.org.
|