realbasic-nug
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Database query

To: REALbasic NUG <realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com>
Subject: Re: Database query
From: Bart Silverstrim <bsilver at chrononomicon dot com>
Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 15:05:54 -0400
Delivered-to: listarchive at realsoftware dot com
Delivered-to: realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com
References: <46E1C1CD dot 4010307 at chrononomicon dot com> <74EE44A6-184D-4915-80EB-7225CED20496 at great-white-software dot com> <46E20379 dot 20901 at chrononomicon dot com> <E9D5F4A3-4998-4947-A533-371DEAF1293F at great-white-software dot com>

Norman Palardy wrote:
> On 7-Sep-07, at 8:05 PM, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
> 
>>> Neither :)
>>> Concurrency control of transactions is what determines if a database
>>> is multiuser or not.
>>> SQLite is single user (only 1 transaction at a time) regardless of
>>> how many people are using it (including REALSQL Server)
>> So...if the application works with the database in the application as
>> designed, then it's okay with RS?
> 
> Not sure what you mean

I mean that if the application can be made to work, then it's okay to 
use it that way...

Some applications could be used to do things that were technically 
feasible but licensing would make it illegal, technically, to do so. 
For example, I know there was a time using Windows NT Workstation as a 
web server would be illegal (or there was a question of legality) 
because the workstation version only allowed a certain number of 
connections simultaneously, despite the OS's ability to handle the 
connections just fine.  Then again, as I understood it, the only 
difference between Server and Workstation was a registry setting and a 
few dll's and exe's added to the Server CD...

Anyway, I was saying that if the application worked, then it isn't 
against REAL's licensing to use the database that way?

>> I would like to try working with an idea I'm kicking around, but I  
>> don't
>> like the idea of designing something that would end up requiring the
>> full SQL database in Pro and having a client purchase both the
>> application and a license from RS for the database portion.  I can't
>> find material that clearly defines under what circumstances the  
>> database
>> in Pro vs. Standard would not be suitable for different purposes.
> 
> The built in database in standard is stand alone.
> No server. The database engine is compiled into your application.

Ah.  The server portion I was referring to was an 
application/daemon/service that talked to the database and was the only 
part talking to the database.

client app->(network connection)->server application<->database

The server application handles requests from clients and arbitrates the 
data served, so no client is connecting to the database. The database 
talks to the server application as it queries for data.

> Can you communicate between various apps and hack together a "multi  
> user" set up ?
> Sure but you may have some issues.
> For low volume stuff it will probably be OK.

Hmm...

So you're saying the scenario I'm posing would not violate RS's 
licensing, and if anything, only testing against real-world deployment 
would dictate problems with scaling.  I'm guessing there's not anyplace 
that tested or benchmarked such things... :-/

-Bart
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>

Search the archives:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>