Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
On 2020-1-28 7:11 am, John McMahon wrote: Define what "serverless" means to you in the SQLite context and provide a link or pop-up to that definition wherever "serverless" occurs in the documentation. Perhaps also include what it doesn't mean if you think this is becoming an issue. How others choose to define "serverless" should not be your problem. Just my pennies worth, John ...and my penny would be an English penny in stating it as "server-less" rather than serverless. Best Regards, Mohit. 2020-2-2 | 10:59 pm. ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 17:18:45 -0500 Richard Hipp wrote: > But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." Many > readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for > "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that > "SQLite is serverless". It would be a mistake to discard the useful term "serverless" in favor of some invented term. Any invented term would have to be defined, in which case you're back to where you started from. As you know, no terminology has context-free meaning. (My favorite example is time: "six o'clock" can mean several different things, depending on context.) The fact that some users impose inappropriate context on "serverless" doesn't make that term less useful or descriptive or meaningful. It seems to me the best course of action, to dispell the confusion, is simply to define the term in some prominent location. You already do that at https://sqlite.org/serverless.html. Maybe that page just needs 3rd bullet point? --jkl ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
Someone should put all the proposals into a vote. The voting system could be driven by a serverless database I presume. ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
I thougth about self-service, self-serve or self-served. Thanks, E. Pasma ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
On 29 Jan 2020, at 22:54, Brian Curley wrote: > The marketing buzzword usage will disappear... long before we’ll have the bike shed painted! /N ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
Am 28.01.2020 um 12:18 schrieb Richard Hipp: On 1/28/20, Howard Chu wrote: Wait, really? AFAICS embedded means in-process, no IPC required to operate. Things like MySQL-embedded and H2 run a "server" as a thread instead of as a separate process. Clients then use Inter-Thread Communication rather than Inter-Process Communication to send their queries to, and get their results from, the database thread. So this is really the same thing as a server using IPC except that the server runs in the same address space as the client. The point of using the term "serverless" is to indicate that SQLite does not work that way. I've always found "serverless" kinda "misleading" (technically). Technically, SQLite is "embeddable InProcess". And thus such a Process (similar to what was described for MySQL- embedded above), could "very well be a DB-Server itself". Your own Fossil-engine would be a good example for such a Server-App, since it allows (very server-like): - concurrent access of multiple Users via sockets... - to access and manage data, which is stored in an SQLite-DB-File I guess it boils down to "what amount of config- or coding-efforts" are needed, to produce/compile a true ServerProcess with the help of an embeddable "InProcess-Library". E.g. my COM-wrapper for SQLite is implemented as a Dll as well (and thus "embeddable InProcess") - but it allows with only two lines of UserCode (just starting a COM-Lib-internal, threaded socket- listener), to transform "any Host-Process" into an SQLite-Resultset- read/write-supporting AppServer (which in many concurrent scenarios outperforms MySQL and also the MS-SQLServer). With the WAL-extension SQLite is usable in many different (concurrent) Server-scenarios (and "Server-Processes") ...with a relative small amount of "extra-code". So in that sense, the word "serverless" kinda suggests that "special usecase only" - which is not (only), what SQLite is used for in reality. Olaf ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
Jim Dodgen wrote: > I vote for ignoring the marketing types and stick with "serverless" The word is intended to communicate a specific meaning to readers. Ignoring that the marketing types have changed the common meaning of "serverless" will just lead to confusion. Originally, "serverless" was a plain description without jargon, so it can be replaced with any other description with exactly the same meaning, such as "server-free", "without server", or "sans-server". Regards, Clemens ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
"Serverless" has worked flawlessly since inception. Why change now...? The marketing buzzword usage will disappear...long before Dr Hipp convinces the list that email is dead even. Regards. Brian P Curley On Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 5:39 PM Jim Dodgen wrote: > I vote for ignoring the marketing types and stick with "serverless" > > Jim "Jed" Dodgen > j...@dodgen.us > > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:20 AM Thomas Kurz > wrote: > > > I would not choose a new wording. "Serverless" is correct, and just > > because others start using "serverless" in a wrong manner, I don't see > any > > need for a change. > > > > Just my 2 cts. > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: Richard Hipp > > To: General Discussion of SQLite Database < > > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org> > > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020, 23:18:45 > > Subject: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless" > > > > For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way > > to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of > > RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it > > seems to mean "without a server". > > > > But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that > > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." Many > > readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for > > "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that > > "SQLite is serverless". > > > > How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of > > "serverless" to mean "without a server"? > > > > Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for > > "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be > > running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most > > embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken. > > > > When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a > > function, that function performs some task on behalf of the > > application, then the function returns, *and that is all*. No threads > > are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping. The > > function does send messages to some other thread or process. The > > function does not have an event loop. The function does not have its > > own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work > > itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller. > > > > So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless" > > without confusing people? > > > > "no-server"? > > "sans-server"? > > "stackless"? > > "non-client/server"? > > > > > > -- > > D. Richard Hipp > > d...@sqlite.org > > ___ > > sqlite-users mailing list > > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > > > > ___ > > sqlite-users mailing list > > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > > > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
I vote for ignoring the marketing types and stick with "serverless" Jim "Jed" Dodgen j...@dodgen.us On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:20 AM Thomas Kurz wrote: > I would not choose a new wording. "Serverless" is correct, and just > because others start using "serverless" in a wrong manner, I don't see any > need for a change. > > Just my 2 cts. > > > - Original Message - > From: Richard Hipp > To: General Discussion of SQLite Database < > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org> > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020, 23:18:45 > Subject: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless" > > For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way > to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of > RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it > seems to mean "without a server". > > But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." Many > readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for > "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that > "SQLite is serverless". > > How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of > "serverless" to mean "without a server"? > > Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for > "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be > running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most > embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken. > > When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a > function, that function performs some task on behalf of the > application, then the function returns, *and that is all*. No threads > are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping. The > function does send messages to some other thread or process. The > function does not have an event loop. The function does not have its > own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work > itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller. > > So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless" > without confusing people? > > "no-server"? > "sans-server"? > "stackless"? > "non-client/server"? > > > -- > D. Richard Hipp > d...@sqlite.org > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
I would not choose a new wording. "Serverless" is correct, and just because others start using "serverless" in a wrong manner, I don't see any need for a change. Just my 2 cts. - Original Message - From: Richard Hipp To: General Discussion of SQLite Database Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020, 23:18:45 Subject: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless" For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it seems to mean "without a server". But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." Many readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that "SQLite is serverless". How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of "serverless" to mean "without a server"? Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken. When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a function, that function performs some task on behalf of the application, then the function returns, *and that is all*. No threads are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping. The function does send messages to some other thread or process. The function does not have an event loop. The function does not have its own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller. So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless" without confusing people? "no-server"? "sans-server"? "stackless"? "non-client/server"? -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
"In-process" describes it best for me. On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 8:16 AM Darren Duncan wrote: > The concepts I like the best so far are "in-process" or "integrated" or > something library-themed. -- Darren Duncan > > On 2020-01-27 2:18 p.m., Richard Hipp wrote: > > For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way > > to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of > > RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it > > seems to mean "without a server". > > > > But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that > > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." Many > > readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for > > "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that > > "SQLite is serverless". > > > > How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of > > "serverless" to mean "without a server"? > > > > Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for > > "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be > > running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most > > embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken. > > > > When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a > > function, that function performs some task on behalf of the > > application, then the function returns, *and that is all*. No threads > > are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping. The > > function does send messages to some other thread or process. The > > function does not have an event loop. The function does not have its > > own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work > > itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller. > > > > So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless" > > without confusing people? > > > > "no-server"? > > "sans-server"? > > "stackless"? > > "non-client/server"? > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
The concepts I like the best so far are "in-process" or "integrated" or something library-themed. -- Darren Duncan On 2020-01-27 2:18 p.m., Richard Hipp wrote: For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it seems to mean "without a server". But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." Many readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that "SQLite is serverless". How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of "serverless" to mean "without a server"? Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken. When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a function, that function performs some task on behalf of the application, then the function returns, *and that is all*. No threads are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping. The function does send messages to some other thread or process. The function does not have an event loop. The function does not have its own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller. So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless" without confusing people? "no-server"? "sans-server"? "stackless"? "non-client/server"? ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
> "What is the word for that programming methodology that existed since the > beginning when there were no threads and everything was single-task?" Real Mode. - Deon > On Jan 28, 2020, at 12:37 PM, Roman Fleysher > wrote: > > What is the word for that programming methodology that existed since the > beginning when there were no threads and everything was single-task? ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
On 28 Jan 2020, at 6:05pm, Roman Fleysher wrote: > I would like to ask, why is it so important to indicate that SQLite, in > reference to threads or client/server, " does not work that way". I think > this might help to find the words to describe it. What a great point. As a (retired) computer admin, the point about server-based systems that most put me off was the admin. You have to install server software. Configure it. Decide what privs it should have. Back up its software and configuration files. Back up its data files. Update it when new releases come out. Deal with problems when OS updates turn out to be incompatible with the server software. So from my point of view one very encouraging way to say "serverless" is "zero administration". ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
Dear Richard and SQLiters, I would like to ask, why is it so important to indicate that SQLite, in reference to threads or client/server, " does not work that way". I think this might help to find the words to describe it. Is it because some embedded systems do not support threads? Is it because some systems are inherently single-task and thus a separate server process can not run? It seems to me that server-free or daemon-free do not transmit this. Also adding "-free" or "less" indicates something that the object is not. More precisely would be to indicate what the object is. What is the word for that programming methodology that existed since the beginning when there were no threads and everything was single-task? Roman From: sqlite-users on behalf of Richard Hipp Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 6:18 AM To: SQLite mailing list Cc: Rowan Worth Subject: Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless" CAUTION: This email comes from an external source; the attachments and/or links may compromise our secure environment. Do not open or click on suspicious emails. Please click on the “Phish Alert” button on the top right of the Outlook dashboard to report any suspicious emails. On 1/28/20, Howard Chu wrote: > > Wait, really? AFAICS embedded means in-process, no IPC required to operate. > Things like MySQL-embedded and H2 run a "server" as a thread instead of as a separate process. Clients then use Inter-Thread Communication rather than Inter-Process Communication to send their queries to, and get their results from, the database thread. So this is really the same thing as a server using IPC except that the server runs in the same address space as the client. The point of using the term "serverless" is to indicate that SQLite does not work that way. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailinglists.sqlite.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsqlite-usersdata=02%7C01%7Croman.fleysher%40einsteinmed.org%7C9d048c5952ba4b25c61f08d7a3e3dc39%7C9c01f0fd65e040c089a82dfd51e62025%7C0%7C0%7C637158071362442872sdata=mC%2F9%2Bc%2Bcn84%2Fvn66c8pTVksPDtzMGhRS5wOwU%2FrQe7w%3Dreserved=0 ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
My 2ct: In-stack callable RDBMS. -- A. J. Millan > Mensaje original > De: Richard Hipp Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:20:25 -0800 > >For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way >to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of >RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it >seems to mean "without a server".Howard Chu > ... > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
Warren Young, on Tuesday, January 28, 2020 02:27 PM, wrote... > > On Jan 28, 2020, at 9:25 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > > > On 1/28/20, Jan Danielsson wrote: > >> On 2020-01-28 00:19, Richard Hipp wrote: > >>> daemon-less? > >> > >> This is my favorite, the only problem is that it is culturally more a > >> Unix-y term. > > > > Since suggesting daemon-less, someone else (I'll have to research who, > > exactly) suggested "server-free", which I think I like more. > > A, that’s too bad, because I just thought up a new tagline for you: > “SQLite: exorcise your database daemons!” Or SQLite: No daemons in this database. :-) ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
On Jan 28, 2020, at 9:25 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > On 1/28/20, Jan Danielsson wrote: >> On 2020-01-28 00:19, Richard Hipp wrote: >>> daemon-less? >> >> This is my favorite, the only problem is that it is culturally more a >> Unix-y term. > > Since suggesting daemon-less, someone else (I'll have to research who, > exactly) suggested "server-free", which I think I like more. A, that’s too bad, because I just thought up a new tagline for you: “SQLite: exorcise your database daemons!” ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
BYOT -> Bring Your Own Thread Put another way: SQLITE is a BYOT Library. - Deon -Original Message- From: sqlite-users On Behalf Of Richard Hipp Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 2:19 PM To: General Discussion of SQLite Database Subject: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless" For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it seems to mean "without a server". But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." Many readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that "SQLite is serverless". How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of "serverless" to mean "without a server"? Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken. When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a function, that function performs some task on behalf of the application, then the function returns, *and that is all*. No threads are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping. The function does send messages to some other thread or process. The function does not have an event loop. The function does not have its own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller. So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless" without confusing people? "no-server"? "sans-server"? "stackless"? "non-client/server"? -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
This is a very important design distinction, not just implementation detail, If you know and internalize up front that SQLITE will run only on the thread you give it, you can architect your application better from the beginning and not e.g. go down one path initially and wonder how the get async behavior later. I work on an old codebase where someone made some bad architectural decisions up front based on their misunderstanding of the SQLite execution model. It's virtually impossible to undo now without rewriting the app. - Deon -Original Message- From: sqlite-users On Behalf Of Jens Alfke Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 9:32 AM To: SQLite mailing list Cc: Rowan Worth Subject: Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless" > On Jan 28, 2020, at 3:18 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > Things like MySQL-embedded and H2 run a "server" as a thread instead > of as a separate process. ... So this is really the same thing as a > server using IPC except that the server runs in the same address space > as the client. I see that as a mere implementation detail, since it doesn't affect the way the developer configures or uses the system. Running an engine on a background thread(s) is an increasingly common technique as CPUs become more concurrent, especially in mobile apps where it's forbidden to 'jank' up the GUI by blocking the main thread. For example, on iOS and macOS the HTTP client library (NSURLSession) and the 2d graphics compositing engine (CoreAnimation) do all their heavy lifting on background threads, but I wouldn't think of calling either of them server-based. —Jens ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
The first thing that came to mind was "client-only", though that made me think of an old saying about lawyers, He who represents himself has a fool for a client. ... Otherwise "server-free" has a very nice ring to it. Carl On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, Graham Holden wrote: > Tuesday, January 28, 2020, 4:25:49 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > >> Since suggesting daemon-less, someone else (I'll have to research who, >> exactly) suggested "server-free", which I think I like more. > > What? A free server with every copy of SQLite? > That sounds like a good deal :-) > > Graham > > > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
> On Jan 28, 2020, at 3:18 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > Things like MySQL-embedded and H2 run a "server" as a thread instead > of as a separate process. ... So this is really the > same thing as a server using IPC except that the server runs in the > same address space as the client. I see that as a mere implementation detail, since it doesn't affect the way the developer configures or uses the system. Running an engine on a background thread(s) is an increasingly common technique as CPUs become more concurrent, especially in mobile apps where it's forbidden to 'jank' up the GUI by blocking the main thread. For example, on iOS and macOS the HTTP client library (NSURLSession) and the 2d graphics compositing engine (CoreAnimation) do all their heavy lifting on background threads, but I wouldn't think of calling either of them server-based. —Jens ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
Tuesday, January 28, 2020, 4:25:49 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > Since suggesting daemon-less, someone else (I'll have to research who, > exactly) suggested "server-free", which I think I like more. What? A free server with every copy of SQLite? That sounds like a good deal :-) Graham ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
On 1/28/20, Jan Danielsson wrote: > On 2020-01-28 00:19, Richard Hipp wrote: >> daemon-less? > >This is my favorite, the only problem is that it is culturally more a > Unix-y term. Since suggesting daemon-less, someone else (I'll have to research who, exactly) suggested "server-free", which I think I like more. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
On 2020-01-28 00:19, Richard Hipp wrote: > daemon-less? This is my favorite, the only problem is that it is culturally more a Unix-y term. But there are plenty of other good suggestions from this thread. - embedded - self-contained - in-process - integrated - connectionless Also take into consideration, to quote Warren Young: ``Keep using the term. We were here first.'' -- Kind Regards, Jan ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
I think of it as direct access, though I could see people confusing that with Windows Server DirectAccess. ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
I like the slightly opaque "compact". A On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 13:31, Donald Shepherd wrote: > > On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 12:26 am, Jose Isaias Cabrera > wrote: > > > > > R Smith, on Tuesday, January 28, 2020 06:39 AM, wrote... > > > > > > I do not have a great suggestion to add, but to observe that the best > > > suggestions I think are: NOT changing, (or if we have to) "Server-Free" > > > or "Localized". > > > > I agree with these, but localize is another buzz word for translation. > > > Internationalisation/translation is my first thought when I hear > localisation/localised, a buzzword that must be at least 15 years old given > when I first encountered it used like that. > > Regards, > Donald Shepherd. > > > > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 12:26 am, Jose Isaias Cabrera wrote: > > R Smith, on Tuesday, January 28, 2020 06:39 AM, wrote... > > > > I do not have a great suggestion to add, but to observe that the best > > suggestions I think are: NOT changing, (or if we have to) "Server-Free" > > or "Localized". > > I agree with these, but localize is another buzz word for translation. Internationalisation/translation is my first thought when I hear localisation/localised, a buzzword that must be at least 15 years old given when I first encountered it used like that. Regards, Donald Shepherd. > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
R Smith, on Tuesday, January 28, 2020 06:39 AM, wrote... > > I do not have a great suggestion to add, but to observe that the best > suggestions I think are: NOT changing, (or if we have to) "Server-Free" > or "Localized". I agree with these, but localize is another buzz word for translation. ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
Warren Young, on Monday, January 27, 2020 07:36 PM, wrote... > > On Jan 27, 2020, at 3:18 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > > > "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that > > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me.” > > “Serverless” it a screwy buzzword anyway, because of course there’s > still a server under its new meaning. > > My vote? Keep using the term. We were here first. I agree. It's an SQL engine without a server need, so it's SQL serverless. Or "server needn't". or Server? No. SQL? Yes Easy? Yes Fast? Yes Multi-platform? Yes Choose any five. > This is an ancient problem. It is why is any serious dictionary the count > of definitions considerably exceeds the count of headwords. These new kids? > “serverless, sense 2.”\ I actually don't believe is ancient. My believe is that this probably started back in late 80's or early 90's with all of these words revision and forcing the meaning. Let's agree to disagree idealogy. josé ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
As R Smith pointed out, you already have a good description in your existing documentation: "SQLite is a self-contained, server-free, zero-configuration ... " I would also throw in the term "library", because it is what it is. Sqlite is just non-executable code that doesn't function on it's own. Even Sqlite needs the command line tool to do something, otherwise it is just a library waiting to be linked in. Off topic, I loathe when terms like "server-less" change meaning, or when new terms are developed to resell something that has existed for decades. On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 4:19 PM Richard Hipp wrote: > For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way > to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of > RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it > seems to mean "without a server". > > But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." Many > readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for > "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that > "SQLite is serverless". > > How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of > "serverless" to mean "without a server"? > > Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for > "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be > running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most > embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken. > > When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a > function, that function performs some task on behalf of the > application, then the function returns, *and that is all*. No threads > are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping. The > function does send messages to some other thread or process. The > function does not have an event loop. The function does not have its > own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work > itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller. > > So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless" > without confusing people? > > "no-server"? > "sans-server"? > "stackless"? > "non-client/server"? > > > -- > D. Richard Hipp > d...@sqlite.org > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
On Tue, 2020-01-28 at 10:11 +1100, John McMahon wrote: > Define what "serverless" means to you in the SQLite context and provide > a link or pop-up to that definition wherever "serverless" occurs in the > documentation. Perhaps also include what it doesn't mean if you think > this is becoming an issue. > > How others choose to define "serverless" should not be your problem. > > Just my pennies worth, > John +1 ^ ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
I do not have a great suggestion to add, but to observe that the best suggestions I think are: NOT changing, (or if we have to) "Server-Free" or "Localized". Especially when you consider the statement at the top of typical SQLite docs might read: "SQLite is a self-contained, server-free, zero-configuration ... " - seems to me to make most sense without still trespassing on the new fad-name. On 2020/01/28 12:18 am, Richard Hipp wrote: For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
On 1/28/20, Howard Chu wrote: > > Wait, really? AFAICS embedded means in-process, no IPC required to operate. > Things like MySQL-embedded and H2 run a "server" as a thread instead of as a separate process. Clients then use Inter-Thread Communication rather than Inter-Process Communication to send their queries to, and get their results from, the database thread. So this is really the same thing as a server using IPC except that the server runs in the same address space as the client. The point of using the term "serverless" is to indicate that SQLite does not work that way. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
stack-capturing It captures the stack of the host. stack-dependent pointer-based ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
[sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
Rowan Worth wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 06:19, Richard Hipp wrote: > >> Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for >> "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be >> running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most >> embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken. Wait, really? AFAICS embedded means in-process, no IPC required to operate. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/ ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
Perhaps "server" is not the right emphasis? Maybe it is the client? Thus, "clientless"? This means that each SQlite session serves itself. Self-sufficient. Roman From: sqlite-users on behalf of Richard Hipp Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 5:18 PM To: General Discussion of SQLite Database Subject: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless" CAUTION: This email comes from an external source; the attachments and/or links may compromise our secure environment. Do not open or click on suspicious emails. Please click on the “Phish Alert” button on the top right of the Outlook dashboard to report any suspicious emails. For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it seems to mean "without a server". But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." Many readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that "SQLite is serverless". How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of "serverless" to mean "without a server"? Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken. When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a function, that function performs some task on behalf of the application, then the function returns, *and that is all*. No threads are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping. The function does send messages to some other thread or process. The function does not have an event loop. The function does not have its own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller. So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless" without confusing people? "no-server"? "sans-server"? "stackless"? "non-client/server"? -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailinglists.sqlite.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsqlite-usersdata=02%7C01%7Croman.fleysher%40einsteinmed.org%7Cacbff015160a4adadbf708d7a376e761%7C9c01f0fd65e040c089a82dfd51e62025%7C0%7C0%7C637157603390189642sdata=QLjXenXheo7mS3o3MEqmxWaD1aKv4oCUkkHJ4zwCYlM%3Dreserved=0 ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
in-process ? On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 10:19 AM Richard Hipp wrote: > daemon-less? > -- > D. Richard Hipp > d...@sqlite.org > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
Hi How about recursive one like GNU? Say, "SQLiteS/TL" exapanding to "Sqlite is Server Less/Thread Less" Nataraj S Narayan Richard Hipp writes: > For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way > to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of > RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it > seems to mean "without a server". > > But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." Many > readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for > "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that > "SQLite is serverless". > > How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of > "serverless" to mean "without a server"? > > Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for > "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be > running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most > embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken. > > When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a > function, that function performs some task on behalf of the > application, then the function returns, *and that is all*. No threads > are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping. The > function does send messages to some other thread or process. The > function does not have an event loop. The function does not have its > own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work > itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller. > > So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless" > without confusing people? > > "no-server"? > "sans-server"? > "stackless"? > "non-client/server"? -- ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 16:13 Cory Nelson wrote: > in-situ > > I think this distinguishes sqlite as being different from an "in-proc yet > separate server". > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 2:19 PM Richard Hipp wrote: > > > For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way > > to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of > > RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it > > seems to mean "without a server". > > > > But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that > > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." Many > > readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for > > "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that > > "SQLite is serverless". > > > > How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of > > "serverless" to mean "without a server"? > > > > Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for > > "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be > > running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most > > embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken. > > > > When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a > > function, that function performs some task on behalf of the > > application, then the function returns, *and that is all*. No threads > > are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping. The > > function does send messages to some other thread or process. The > > function does not have an event loop. The function does not have its > > own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work > > itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller. > > > > So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless" > > without confusing people? > > > > "no-server"? > > "sans-server"? > > "stackless"? > > "non-client/server"? > > > > > > -- > > D. Richard Hipp > > d...@sqlite.org > > ___ > > sqlite-users mailing list > > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > > > > > -- > Cory Nelson > http://int64.org > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users How about 'immediate'? > > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
in-situ I think this distinguishes sqlite as being different from an "in-proc yet separate server". On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 2:19 PM Richard Hipp wrote: > For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way > to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of > RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it > seems to mean "without a server". > > But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." Many > readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for > "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that > "SQLite is serverless". > > How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of > "serverless" to mean "without a server"? > > Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for > "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be > running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most > embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken. > > When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a > function, that function performs some task on behalf of the > application, then the function returns, *and that is all*. No threads > are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping. The > function does send messages to some other thread or process. The > function does not have an event loop. The function does not have its > own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work > itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller. > > So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless" > without confusing people? > > "no-server"? > "sans-server"? > "stackless"? > "non-client/server"? > > > -- > D. Richard Hipp > d...@sqlite.org > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > -- Cory Nelson http://int64.org ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:19 PM Richard Hipp wrote: > How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of > "serverless" to mean "without a server"? Don't. I'm with Warren, Jens, Stephen on this one. Keep it, but make a new sqlite.org/serverless doc page, and link to it when you reference that term anywhere in the doc, to explain the original (and more accurate) meaning of the serverless term. Regarding the other proposal: * embedded is accurate, but may make people think this is reserved for "embedded" micro-controller programming, which it isn't of course. * server-free is OK * standalone is also accurate, but too vague. My $0.02. --DD ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
On 27-1-2020 23:18, Richard Hipp wrote: > For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way > to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of > RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it > seems to mean "without a server". > client-serverless? although I've always thought of it as an in-proces DB-library. ingo ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
Maybe "edge" database ? Or "local" database ? Both are trending terms, on the theme of taking control and performance back from the cloud. "Embedded" would be technically good, but is often associated with devices and small things these days. Le mar. 28 janv. 2020 à 05:58, Rowan Worth a écrit : > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 06:19, Richard Hipp wrote: > > > Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for > > "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be > > running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most > > embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken. > > > > I think embedded does capture SQLite well though. For a lot of devs the > target API is the important thing, and whether there are threads behind the > scenes is something of an implementation detail. But it is certainly a nice > feature of SQLite's implementation, perhaps "embedded, threadless" would > work to clarify that (although it's not an objectively true description > once WORKER_THREADS enter the equation). > > "in-thread" also has a certain appeal - it's not a term I've seen used > before but it makes sense as a stronger version of "in-process." > > I can't find any general terms for a library which spawns threads vs. one > which doesn't. > -Rowan > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 06:19, Richard Hipp wrote: > Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for > "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be > running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most > embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken. > I think embedded does capture SQLite well though. For a lot of devs the target API is the important thing, and whether there are threads behind the scenes is something of an implementation detail. But it is certainly a nice feature of SQLite's implementation, perhaps "embedded, threadless" would work to clarify that (although it's not an objectively true description once WORKER_THREADS enter the equation). "in-thread" also has a certain appeal - it's not a term I've seen used before but it makes sense as a stronger version of "in-process." I can't find any general terms for a library which spawns threads vs. one which doesn't. -Rowan ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 05:18:45PM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote: > For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way > to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of > RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it ... > So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless" > without confusing people? > > "no-server"? > "sans-server"? > "stackless"? > "non-client/server"? I feel "non-client/server" gets to the core of it, but is slightly negative in context - "well, here's what I'm not..". Also a little unwieldy. Regards, Karl ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
Edit, that last part should say "skim server" :D On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 10:54 PM David Baird wrote: > How about "skim server"? So if, "server" means a whole server, then like > whole milk versus skim milk, a fraction of a server becomes severless :) > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 9:57 PM Stephen Chrzanowski > wrote: > >> I'd stick with "serverless". The marketing teams that make "serverless" >> mean that websites don't run with "servers" are I-D-TEN-Ts. It's a fad >> phrase that'll go away eventually. I understand marketing, and its >> purpose, but, in this case, they're pushing it. >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:31 PM sub sk79 wrote: >> >> > Also maybe Slipstreamed? >> > >> > -Neal >> > >> > On Monday, January 27, 2020, sub sk79 wrote: >> > >> > > How about Seamless, Integrated or Baked-in? >> > > >> > > -Neal >> > > >> > > On Monday, January 27, 2020, Warren Young wrote: >> > > >> > >> On Jan 27, 2020, at 3:18 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that >> > >> > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me.” >> > >> >> > >> “Serverless” it a screwy buzzword anyway, because of course there’s >> > still >> > >> a server under its new meaning. >> > >> >> > >> My vote? Keep using the term. We were here first. >> > >> >> > >> This is an ancient problem. It is why is any serious dictionary the >> > >> count of definitions considerably exceeds the count of headwords. >> These >> > >> new kids? “serverless, sense 2.” >> > >> ___ >> > >> sqlite-users mailing list >> > >> sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org >> > >> http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users >> > >> >> > > >> > ___ >> > sqlite-users mailing list >> > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org >> > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users >> > >> ___ >> sqlite-users mailing list >> sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org >> http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users >> > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
How about "skim server"? So if, "server" means a whole server, then like whole milk versus skim milk, a fraction of a server becomes severless :) On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 9:57 PM Stephen Chrzanowski wrote: > I'd stick with "serverless". The marketing teams that make "serverless" > mean that websites don't run with "servers" are I-D-TEN-Ts. It's a fad > phrase that'll go away eventually. I understand marketing, and its > purpose, but, in this case, they're pushing it. > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:31 PM sub sk79 wrote: > > > Also maybe Slipstreamed? > > > > -Neal > > > > On Monday, January 27, 2020, sub sk79 wrote: > > > > > How about Seamless, Integrated or Baked-in? > > > > > > -Neal > > > > > > On Monday, January 27, 2020, Warren Young wrote: > > > > > >> On Jan 27, 2020, at 3:18 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > >> > > > >> > "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that > > >> > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me.” > > >> > > >> “Serverless” it a screwy buzzword anyway, because of course there’s > > still > > >> a server under its new meaning. > > >> > > >> My vote? Keep using the term. We were here first. > > >> > > >> This is an ancient problem. It is why is any serious dictionary the > > >> count of definitions considerably exceeds the count of headwords. > These > > >> new kids? “serverless, sense 2.” > > >> ___ > > >> sqlite-users mailing list > > >> sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > > >> http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > > >> > > > > > ___ > > sqlite-users mailing list > > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > > > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
I'd stick with "serverless". The marketing teams that make "serverless" mean that websites don't run with "servers" are I-D-TEN-Ts. It's a fad phrase that'll go away eventually. I understand marketing, and its purpose, but, in this case, they're pushing it. On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:31 PM sub sk79 wrote: > Also maybe Slipstreamed? > > -Neal > > On Monday, January 27, 2020, sub sk79 wrote: > > > How about Seamless, Integrated or Baked-in? > > > > -Neal > > > > On Monday, January 27, 2020, Warren Young wrote: > > > >> On Jan 27, 2020, at 3:18 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > >> > > >> > "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that > >> > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me.” > >> > >> “Serverless” it a screwy buzzword anyway, because of course there’s > still > >> a server under its new meaning. > >> > >> My vote? Keep using the term. We were here first. > >> > >> This is an ancient problem. It is why is any serious dictionary the > >> count of definitions considerably exceeds the count of headwords. These > >> new kids? “serverless, sense 2.” > >> ___ > >> sqlite-users mailing list > >> sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > >> http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > >> > > > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
Also maybe Slipstreamed? -Neal On Monday, January 27, 2020, sub sk79 wrote: > How about Seamless, Integrated or Baked-in? > > -Neal > > On Monday, January 27, 2020, Warren Young wrote: > >> On Jan 27, 2020, at 3:18 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: >> > >> > "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that >> > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me.” >> >> “Serverless” it a screwy buzzword anyway, because of course there’s still >> a server under its new meaning. >> >> My vote? Keep using the term. We were here first. >> >> This is an ancient problem. It is why is any serious dictionary the >> count of definitions considerably exceeds the count of headwords. These >> new kids? “serverless, sense 2.” >> ___ >> sqlite-users mailing list >> sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org >> http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users >> > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
Standalone (library / database provider ) native header-only (almost) there's an entry on 'standalone programs' in wikipedia, and there's lots of other libraries that have standalone versions, but it's not a very well defined word. in-process is probably closest (in-process database (interface/provider)) does it need to be a single word? or maybe just a catchy acronym, SIS (standalone in-process service) [probably not that one] On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 4:03 PM Peter da Silva wrote: > Server-free sounds good. Standalone too. Integrated maybe? > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 17:54 Donald Shepherd > wrote: > > > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 10:19 am, Richard Hipp wrote: > > > > > daemon-less? > > > -- > > > D. Richard Hipp > > > d...@sqlite.org > > > > > > In-process? Same concept but defining it by what it is rather than what > it > > isn't. > > > > Regards, > > Donald Shepherd. > > > > > > > ___ > > sqlite-users mailing list > > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > > > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
SQLite is your everywhere database, except on servers ;) On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:12 PM sub sk79 wrote: > How about Seamless, Integrated or Baked-in? > > -Neal > > On Monday, January 27, 2020, Warren Young wrote: > > > On Jan 27, 2020, at 3:18 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > > > > > "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that > > > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me.” > > > > “Serverless” it a screwy buzzword anyway, because of course there’s still > > a server under its new meaning. > > > > My vote? Keep using the term. We were here first. > > > > This is an ancient problem. It is why is any serious dictionary the > count > > of definitions considerably exceeds the count of headwords. These new > > kids? “serverless, sense 2.” > > ___ > > sqlite-users mailing list > > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > > > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
How about Seamless, Integrated or Baked-in? -Neal On Monday, January 27, 2020, Warren Young wrote: > On Jan 27, 2020, at 3:18 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > > > "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that > > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me.” > > “Serverless” it a screwy buzzword anyway, because of course there’s still > a server under its new meaning. > > My vote? Keep using the term. We were here first. > > This is an ancient problem. It is why is any serious dictionary the count > of definitions considerably exceeds the count of headwords. These new > kids? “serverless, sense 2.” > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
> On Jan 27, 2020, at 2:18 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." I hate this buzzword. It's especially confusing because peer-to-peer architectures are also validly described as serverless. > How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of > "serverless" to mean "without a server"? Don't change it. The term is totally accurate for describing SQLite, and the other terms people are suggesting are IMHO less clear. Rather, I would add a blurb to the "SQLite Is Serverless" web page, clarifying that you are using the original common-sensical definition of the word, not the current buzzword. —Jens ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
On Jan 27, 2020, at 3:18 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me.” “Serverless” it a screwy buzzword anyway, because of course there’s still a server under its new meaning. My vote? Keep using the term. We were here first. This is an ancient problem. It is why is any serious dictionary the count of definitions considerably exceeds the count of headwords. These new kids? “serverless, sense 2.” ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
I'll throw in "embedded", but I'd vote for "self contained" too :-) > On 27. Jan 2020, at 23:57, Jay Kreibich wrote: > > I often describe it as “self contained.” > > -j > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jan 27, 2020, at 4:19 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: >> >> For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way >> to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of >> RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it >> seems to mean "without a server". >> >> But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that >> means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." Many >> readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for >> "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that >> "SQLite is serverless". >> >> How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of >> "serverless" to mean "without a server"? >> >> Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for >> "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be >> running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most >> embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken. >> >> When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a >> function, that function performs some task on behalf of the >> application, then the function returns, *and that is all*. No threads >> are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping. The >> function does send messages to some other thread or process. The >> function does not have an event loop. The function does not have its >> own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work >> itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller. >> >> So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless" >> without confusing people? >> >> "no-server"? >> "sans-server"? >> "stackless"? >> "non-client/server"? >> >> >> -- >> D. Richard Hipp >> d...@sqlite.org >> ___ >> sqlite-users mailing list >> sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org >> http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
In C/C++ the closest concept is a Header Only Library. Except that SQLITE is not only C+++, and it's not header only... Library Only Implementation? In-Proc / In-Thread Library? Self Contained Library? Looks like I'm on a generally "Library" theme here... - Deon -Original Message- From: sqlite-users On Behalf Of Richard Hipp Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 2:19 PM To: General Discussion of SQLite Database Subject: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless" For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it seems to mean "without a server". But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." Many readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that "SQLite is serverless". How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of "serverless" to mean "without a server"? Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken. When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a function, that function performs some task on behalf of the application, then the function returns, *and that is all*. No threads are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping. The function does send messages to some other thread or process. The function does not have an event loop. The function does not have its own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller. So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless" without confusing people? "no-server"? "sans-server"? "stackless"? "non-client/server"? -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all." - Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass On 28/01/2020 09:18, Richard Hipp wrote: For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it seems to mean "without a server". But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." Many readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that "SQLite is serverless". How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of "serverless" to mean "without a server"? Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken. When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a function, that function performs some task on behalf of the application, then the function returns, *and that is all*. No threads are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping. The function does send messages to some other thread or process. The function does not have an event loop. The function does not have its own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller. So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless" without confusing people? "no-server"? "sans-server"? "stackless"? "non-client/server"? -- Regards John McMahon li...@jspect.fastmail.fm When people say "The climate has changed before," these are the kinds of changes they're talking about. https://xkcd.com/1732/ ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
On 27 Jan 2020, at 11:53pm, Donald Shepherd wrote: > In-process? Same concept but defining it by what it is rather than what it > isn't. This comes closest to what I think needs stating. What you're trying to say is that there's no process (on the accessing computer or some other computer across a network) which handles and coordinates all the database access. I was thinking about the word 'decentralised' but that seems to mean something that used to be central. 'uncentralised' is a word which just needs explaining. And 'uncoordinated' doesn't mean the right thing in English. One problem is that 'server' has too many meanings now. SQLite is certainly 'serverless', but that doesn't say enough. Does 'decentralised' mean anything useful to the sort of person who might need to read that description ? ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
Server-free sounds good. Standalone too. Integrated maybe? On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 17:54 Donald Shepherd wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 10:19 am, Richard Hipp wrote: > > > daemon-less? > > -- > > D. Richard Hipp > > d...@sqlite.org > > > In-process? Same concept but defining it by what it is rather than what it > isn't. > > Regards, > Donald Shepherd. > > > > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 10:19 am, Richard Hipp wrote: > daemon-less? > -- > D. Richard Hipp > d...@sqlite.org In-process? Same concept but defining it by what it is rather than what it isn't. Regards, Donald Shepherd. > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
"Server-free"? It's reasonably close to serverless, but doesn't have the conflicting meaning. Jen On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 05:18:45PM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote: > For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way > to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of > RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it > seems to mean "without a server". > > But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." Many > readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for > "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that > "SQLite is serverless". > > How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of > "serverless" to mean "without a server"? > > Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for > "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be > running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most > embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken. > > When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a > function, that function performs some task on behalf of the > application, then the function returns, *and that is all*. No threads > are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping. The > function does send messages to some other thread or process. The > function does not have an event loop. The function does not have its > own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work > itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller. > > So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless" > without confusing people? > > "no-server"? > "sans-server"? > "stackless"? > "non-client/server"? > > > -- > D. Richard Hipp > d...@sqlite.org > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
daemon-less? -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
Define what "serverless" means to you in the SQLite context and provide a link or pop-up to that definition wherever "serverless" occurs in the documentation. Perhaps also include what it doesn't mean if you think this is becoming an issue. How others choose to define "serverless" should not be your problem. Just my pennies worth, John On 28/01/2020 09:18, Richard Hipp wrote: For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it seems to mean "without a server". But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." Many readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that "SQLite is serverless". How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of "serverless" to mean "without a server"? Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken. When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a function, that function performs some task on behalf of the application, then the function returns, *and that is all*. No threads are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping. The function does send messages to some other thread or process. The function does not have an event loop. The function does not have its own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller. So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless" without confusing people? "no-server"? "sans-server"? "stackless"? "non-client/server"? -- Regards John McMahon li...@jspect.fastmail.fm When people say "The climate has changed before," these are the kinds of changes they're talking about. https://xkcd.com/1732/ ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
standalone seems reasonable. To confuse things further, I have seen Sqlite embedded in an embedded web server, serverless doesn't fit that case. On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 9:45 AM Jose Isaias Cabrera wrote: > > > Richard Hipp, on Monday, January 27, 2020 05:18 PM, wrote... > > > > For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way > > to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of > > RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it > > seems to mean "without a server". > > > > But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that > > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." Many > > readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for > > "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that > > "SQLite is serverless". > > It's kinda funny. Back in 2006 I needed to create an app with SQL but on a > local machine. MySQL was too big for the simple app, so, I wanted something > without a server. So, I actually searched on "serverless SQL engine", and > BOOOM!, sqlite.org came up. Now you want to take that away from me. :-) > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
I often describe it as “self contained.” -j Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 27, 2020, at 4:19 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way > to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of > RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it > seems to mean "without a server". > > But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." Many > readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for > "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that > "SQLite is serverless". > > How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of > "serverless" to mean "without a server"? > > Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for > "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be > running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most > embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken. > > When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a > function, that function performs some task on behalf of the > application, then the function returns, *and that is all*. No threads > are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping. The > function does send messages to some other thread or process. The > function does not have an event loop. The function does not have its > own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work > itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller. > > So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless" > without confusing people? > > "no-server"? > "sans-server"? > "stackless"? > "non-client/server"? > > > -- > D. Richard Hipp > d...@sqlite.org > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
Richard Hipp, on Monday, January 27, 2020 05:18 PM, wrote... > > For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way > to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of > RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it > seems to mean "without a server". > > But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." Many > readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for > "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that > "SQLite is serverless". It's kinda funny. Back in 2006 I needed to create an app with SQL but on a local machine. MySQL was too big for the simple app, so, I wanted something without a server. So, I actually searched on "serverless SQL engine", and BOOOM!, sqlite.org came up. Now you want to take that away from me. :-) ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
I think of it as being "standalone." Gerry Snyder On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 3:19 PM Richard Hipp wrote: > For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way > to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of > RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it > seems to mean "without a server". > > But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." Many > readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for > "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that > "SQLite is serverless". > > How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of > "serverless" to mean "without a server"? > > Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for > "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be > running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most > embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken. > > When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a > function, that function performs some task on behalf of the > application, then the function returns, *and that is all*. No threads > are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping. The > function does send messages to some other thread or process. The > function does not have an event loop. The function does not have its > own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work > itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller. > > So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless" > without confusing people? > > "no-server"? > "sans-server"? > "stackless"? > "non-client/server"? > > > -- > D. Richard Hipp > d...@sqlite.org > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
On 27 Jan 2020, at 22:18, Richard Hipp wrote: > For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way > to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of > RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it > seems to mean "without a server". > > But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." Many > readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for > "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that > "SQLite is serverless". > > How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of > "serverless" to mean "without a server"? Fundamentally SQLite is a library that you link in, either at app build time or later at runtime. I'd prefer a term that suggests this. -- Cheers -- Tim ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
Runtimeless? Not sure if the word runtimeless would be accurate to describe SQLite. I'm not sure if it is even a word, I'm not a native english speaker. But here is my contribution. On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 7:19 PM Richard Hipp wrote: > For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way > to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of > RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it > seems to mean "without a server". > > But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." Many > readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for > "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that > "SQLite is serverless". > > How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of > "serverless" to mean "without a server"? > > Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for > "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be > running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most > embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken. > > When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a > function, that function performs some task on behalf of the > application, then the function returns, *and that is all*. No threads > are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping. The > function does send messages to some other thread or process. The > function does not have an event loop. The function does not have its > own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work > itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller. > > So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless" > without confusing people? > > "no-server"? > "sans-server"? > "stackless"? > "non-client/server"? > > > -- > D. Richard Hipp > d...@sqlite.org > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
Client (only) db Sequential db On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 5:27 PM Peter da Silva wrote: > Local? > > On Mon, 27 Jan 2020, 16:19 Richard Hipp, wrote: > > > For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way > > to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of > > RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it > > seems to mean "without a server". > > > > But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that > > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." Many > > readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for > > "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that > > "SQLite is serverless". > > > > How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of > > "serverless" to mean "without a server"? > > > > Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for > > "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be > > running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most > > embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken. > > > > When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a > > function, that function performs some task on behalf of the > > application, then the function returns, *and that is all*. No threads > > are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping. The > > function does send messages to some other thread or process. The > > function does not have an event loop. The function does not have its > > own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work > > itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller. > > > > So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless" > > without confusing people? > > > > "no-server"? > > "sans-server"? > > "stackless"? > > "non-client/server"? > > > > > > -- > > D. Richard Hipp > > d...@sqlite.org > > ___ > > sqlite-users mailing list > > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > > > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
Local? On Mon, 27 Jan 2020, 16:19 Richard Hipp, wrote: > For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way > to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of > RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it > seems to mean "without a server". > > But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." Many > readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for > "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that > "SQLite is serverless". > > How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of > "serverless" to mean "without a server"? > > Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for > "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be > running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most > embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken. > > When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a > function, that function performs some task on behalf of the > application, then the function returns, *and that is all*. No threads > are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping. The > function does send messages to some other thread or process. The > function does not have an event loop. The function does not have its > own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work > itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller. > > So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless" > without confusing people? > > "no-server"? > "sans-server"? > "stackless"? > "non-client/server"? > > > -- > D. Richard Hipp > d...@sqlite.org > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
I like "NO-SERVER" -Original Message- From: Richard Hipp To: General Discussion of SQLite Database Sent: Mon, Jan 27, 2020 2:18 pm Subject: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless" For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it seems to mean "without a server". But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." Many readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that "SQLite is serverless". How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of "serverless" to mean "without a server"? Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken. When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a function, that function performs some task on behalf of the application, then the function returns, *and that is all*. No threads are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping. The function does send messages to some other thread or process. The function does not have an event loop. The function does not have its own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller. So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless" without confusing people? "no-server"? "sans-server"? "stackless"? "non-client/server"? -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
[sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"
For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it seems to mean "without a server". But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." Many readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that "SQLite is serverless". How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of "serverless" to mean "without a server"? Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken. When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a function, that function performs some task on behalf of the application, then the function returns, *and that is all*. No threads are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping. The function does send messages to some other thread or process. The function does not have an event loop. The function does not have its own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller. So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless" without confusing people? "no-server"? "sans-server"? "stackless"? "non-client/server"? -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
