On 08/29/14 14:43, Mark Rotteveel wrote: > On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:12:12 +0400, Alex Peshkoff <peshk...@mail.ru> > wrote: >>> That sounds like an idea. An alternative would be to allow this when >>> creating or altering the procedure, eg something like CREATE PROCEDURE >>> myprocedure(...) RETURNS ... WITH (SUPPRESS_SOURCE) AS ... >> Like Dimitriy correctly noticed - this will cause great problems when >> the moment will come to stop using BLR. >> And what should we do with such statement at that time? > What does that mean? On the fly/on demand compilation from source, or > using a different byte code representation than blr?
Compilation from source directly into executable by engine form. > If the first then you > still have my initial WITH (ENCRYPTION) proposal as an alternative Afraid that in open source world this hardly works - if engine is able to decrypt source for compilation it's too easy to add printf-s where needed and open DB with such engine. > , and > remember you already have a problem anyway with people who currently delete > the source. Yep, that will be definitely problem for them. > However, my primary opinion is that these are all stopgap measures that > don't offer any real protection; so why go through the trouble of offering > it in any official way. Yes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
