> > What might help interest and uptake, is to give us more detail on why > YOU found it so useful. For example, in your use of uSQLiteServer on > embedded systems, why didn't you just use an existing client-server > RDBMS?
I have been using RDBMS's. This solves various recurrent problems: 1) Using microcontrollers, PLC's and other v.small devices. Current practice is to connect to them using simple serial protocols such as modbus, and then have a program on a PC or something which connects to the DB. This technique cuts out the middleware. 2) This technique allows small servers. Eventually I would like to be able to run servers on microcontrollers. 3) I wanted to be able to mix memory based tables with disk based tables in the same schema, the memory based tables serve for IPC. There are some partial solutions to this, but I have always found 'gotchas'. For example on MySQL I can have a memory based database and I can share the schema, but the memory based tables are much simpler than the normal ones and subject to a lot of restrictions. Yes, this is not really a connection problem, it could be solved at the database, but database developers seem reluctant to include such features. 4) Simplicity in 'distributed embedded' systems. That is the database is used for a specific application, but bits of the application are spread over 2 or more different platforms. uSQLiteServer is made as a library, it can be linked into an application but other instances of the application can share the same database without needing to install a seperate database server and possible clients. > > You needed something smaller footprint? You were using a weird client > platform for which there was no working PostgreSQL client code at all, > and you wanted something simpler to implement? I must confess, I have never looked too hard at the postgres client code. I have looked at the server, it is not very portable and is quite difficult to deploy on a windows platform. I build automation systems in industrial environments. Believe me, as systems get more complicated you just have to search for simplicity, you just don't need problems like 'have I installed the right version of cygwin'. You had to also run > the database server on a very resource constrained embedded system, > rather than a general purpose server box? Or? > > -- > Andrew Piskorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://www.piskorski.com/
