On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Philip Graham Willoughby < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 21 Dec 2010, at 12:16, Max Vlasov wrote: > > > Simon, I read both your suggestion and the Richard's good explanation > about > > network problems. I think that the idea still deserves to live in some > form > > :). I sometimes access sqlite db on a remote computer accessed with > sqlite > > shell executed in telnet/ssh. It works and it looks like good design for > > interaction in terms of network bandwidth. If it can be implemented in > more > > friendly way toward the developer, I think it would still be a lighter > > version of a sql-aware dbms than SQLite/PostgreSQL. > > I would like to explore what is meant by 'lighter' in this context, and why > it is desirable. I have thought about this in the context of what I think it > might mean; if you mean it to mean something else please let me know. > > Philip, I see your point and unfortunately I can not suggest a similarly accurate analysis on my side. When I said "lighter" I seem like partly meant "more portable". As for client/server sqlite, I'm far from suggesting anything real, but also far from calling it non-sense :). Max Vlasov _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list [email protected] http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
