On 22 Dec 2010, at 12:45am, Jeff Archer wrote: > A SQLite Server would be userful. I have considered creating this myself. I > have thought that it would need to be kept zero config and it should be > provided > in amalgamation form to keep simple to embed in applications. Wouldn't need > incredible throughput as it is a ServerLite. Would very conveniently avoid > the > issues of sharing database file across network.
You do mention something worthwhile: if you had a server/client version of SQLite you could get rid of all the code to do with file sharing and locking. That's quite a lot of code, if you include all the PRAGMAs and related programming that could be ignored. You will need some way to keep multiple connections straight -- each one has its own transaction and rollback status. But you have the advantage that one process knows everything that needs to be known: it can all be handled by one process, that process knows everything it has to know, and it can keep everything it needs in memory. Simon. _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
