On 10/12/17 13:06, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
12.10.2017 11:55, Alex Peshkoff via Firebird-devel wrote:
Suggested implementation of that possibilities is also bad - it's
supposed to have different behavior depending upon text in parameter.
You didn't see implementation, how can you appraise
12.10.2017 11:55, Alex Peshkoff via Firebird-devel wrote:
Suggested implementation of that possibilities is also bad - it's supposed to have
different behavior depending upon text in parameter.
You didn't see implementation, how can you appraise it? Your suppose is wrong.
--
WBR, SD.
On 10/12/17 12:02, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
12.10.2017 10:24, Alex Peshkoff via Firebird-devel wrote:
what problem do you want to solve with this change?
No problem to solve. It is not bug fix, it is an improvement. It
open new possibilities for app developers, nothing more.
That
12.10.2017 10:24, Alex Peshkoff via Firebird-devel wrote:
what problem do you want to solve with this change?
No problem to solve. It is not bug fix, it is an improvement. It open new possibilities
for app developers, nothing more.
--
WBR, SD.
12.10.2017 0:32, Vlad Khorsun via Firebird-devel wrote:
I mixed ? It is you, who offer to use auth params as actions params !
No, I don't.
Currently, developer have single
place to set action's database name. You offer to set it here and there -
this is confusing at least and solves no
Well Dmitry (and please briefly) - what problem do you want to solve
with this change?
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
12.10.2017 0:37, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
11.10.2017 22:56, Vlad Khorsun via Firebird-devel wrote:
The problem is that you don't undestand that auth parameters (required to
create
connection) should not be mixed with action's parameters.
I can't understand what you talking about.
11.10.2017 22:56, Vlad Khorsun via Firebird-devel wrote:
The problem is that you don't undestand that auth parameters (required to
create
connection) should not be mixed with action's parameters.
I can't understand what you talking about. Action parameters are in spb at
11.10.2017 23:33, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
11.10.2017 22:14, Vlad Khorsun via Firebird-devel wrote:
IIRC, it is already implemented.
No. This functionality is in fbsvcmgr, but not in gbak.
It is implemented at Service API level, i.e. by all the providers (engine,
remote, etc)
but
11.10.2017 22:14, Vlad Khorsun via Firebird-devel wrote:
IIRC, it is already implemented.
No. This functionality is in fbsvcmgr, but not in gbak. And currently it is rather hack
with magic word "stdout" instead of proper implementation.
So, turn your imagination on. Service *is not
11.10.2017 22:22, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
11.10.2017 20:57, Vlad Khorsun via Firebird-devel wrote:
I don't understand your speculations
Ok, turn your imagination on: Performance of gbak must be improved by feeding of backup stream from server using services instead
of sending queries.
11.10.2017 21:27, Alex Peshkoff via Firebird-devel wrote:
Possible - if you use isc_sbp_command_line.
Dirty hack, but still working.
There is service that can work with multiple databases - trace.
So, this service won't gain anything from new possibilities. I see no problem
with
On 10/11/17 22:22, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
11.10.2017 20:57, Vlad Khorsun via Firebird-devel wrote:
I don't understand your speculations
Ok, turn your imagination on: Performance of gbak must be improved
by feeding of backup stream from server using services instead of
sending
11.10.2017 20:57, Vlad Khorsun via Firebird-devel wrote:
I don't understand your speculations
Ok, turn your imagination on: Performance of gbak must be improved by feeding of backup
stream from server using services instead of sending queries. How will you implement it?
Because
11.10.2017 21:34, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
I must agree that host:service_mgr is weird, but not all services
expects (or would expect) a database.
Can't say it is weird. Probably, we could allow to skip service manager
name, but it will be hard to specify XNET protocol without
11.10.2017 21:09, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
11.10.2017 19:47, Vlad Khorsun via Firebird-devel wrote:
I don't see it as a problem, as user already should understand what is
connection string and
how to construct is from host name and database name. From my expirience
"usual" applications
On 11/10/2017 15:09, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
>
> Compare this:
>
> fbsvcmgr host:service_mgr user sysdba password xxx expected_db
> employee action_db_stats dbname employee
>
> and this:
>
> fbsvcmgr host:employee user sysdba password xxx action_db_stats
>
> What is "more complex and
10.10.2017 19:00, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
Hello.
Imagine that you are an application developer and develop an application that allow users to enter connection string for database
they want to work with. Imagine that in new version of the application you would like to add some work with
11.10.2017 16:08, Vlad Khorsun via Firebird-devel wrote:
PS if this message will pass to the list, i'll explain why i object
I know why you object, but I would like to hear what technical problems you foresee
with this feature.
--
WBR, SD.
11.10.2017 16:59, Dimitry Sibiryakov пишет:
10.10.2017 18:00, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
I'd suggest to offer to the application developer third, more convenient,
option: subj.
If database connection string is used this way, server can automatically set the database name to expected_db
10.10.2017 18:00, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
I'd suggest to offer to the application developer third, more convenient,
option: subj.
If database connection string is used this way, server can automatically set the
database name to expected_db and dbname tags if they are not provided
Hello.
Imagine that you are an application developer and develop an application that allow
users to enter connection string for database they want to work with. Imagine that in new
version of the application you would like to add some work with services (backup, restore,
stats, etc.)
22 matches
Mail list logo
