Yeah what are these dependencies you speak of? Sql server is a windows service already ;)
On Wednesday, 11 November 2015, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士) <[email protected]> wrote: > With the “SQL Server has too many dependencies that aren’t available”, > which dependencies are the issue? > > > > Have you considered the localdb option? It’s targeted pretty much right at > what you’re describing. > > > > Regards, > > > > Greg > > > > Dr Greg Low > > > > 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913 > fax > > SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com > > > > *From:* [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> [mailto: > [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>] *On > Behalf Of *Greg Keogh > *Sent:* Wednesday, 11 November 2015 3:17 PM > *To:* ozDotNet <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> > *Subject:* Sharing a database file > > > > Howdy again, I'm thinking aloud about a problem here in case there is > lateral thinking available. > > > > We have a mature app that uses a single-file database that is locked. Now > new apps want to use this file as well, but how can they share it? The > usual fix would be to (1) Migrate it into something like SQL Server (2) > Wrap the file in code in a different process and expose it as a service. > > > > Option 1 has too many dependencies that aren't available. Option 2 is easy > to code, but you have to manage the lifetime of the process and perhaps > make it a Windows Service, which makes a bigger install and runtime > footprint. > > > > At the moment I'm wondering if the "service" could be a hidden console or > WinForms app that is registered in HKLM Run, or similar. That way it's a > "fake lightweight service". > > > > *Greg K* >
