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 <row...@dug.com> a écrit : > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 06:19, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> 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
