At 07:20 PM 17/12/2011, Dmitry Yemanov wrote:
>17.12.2011 8:34, Helen Borrie wrote:
>>
>> fbrmclib.dll in the v.2.5.n \bin\ folder: what is it?
>
>Some utility library related to the GPRE / RM Cobol support contributed
>by Steve Boyd a while ago.
Oh. Ok. :-\
Helen
-
17.12.2011 8:34, Helen Borrie wrote:
>
> fbrmclib.dll in the v.2.5.n \bin\ folder: what is it?
Some utility library related to the GPRE / RM Cobol support contributed
by Steve Boyd a while ago.
Dmitry
--
Learn Windows
All:
fbrmclib.dll in the v.2.5.n \bin\ folder: what is it?
Thanks,
Helen
--
Learn Windows Azure Live! Tuesday, Dec 13, 2011
Microsoft is holding a special Learn Windows Azure training event for
developers. It will pro
On 16/12/2011 06:08, Mark Rotteveel wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:14:20 -0200, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes
> wrote:
>> There is no UUID "binary representation" in the RFC. There it's just a
>> formated string.
> Yes there is a binary representation defined in
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4122.
On 12/16/11 17:30, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
> On 16/12/2011 11:25, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
>> On 12/16/11 16:45, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
>>> 16.12.2011 13:40, Carlos H. Cantu wrote:
there is plenty of time for testing.
>>> It is not actually about testing, but rather practical
On 16/12/2011 11:25, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
> On 12/16/11 16:45, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
>> 16.12.2011 13:40, Carlos H. Cantu wrote:
>>> there is plenty of time for testing.
>> It is not actually about testing, but rather practical usability. API
>> can work without
>> any glitch, but don't
On 12/16/11 16:45, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
> 16.12.2011 13:40, Carlos H. Cantu wrote:
>> there is plenty of time for testing.
>It is not actually about testing, but rather practical usability. API can
> work without
> any glitch, but don't provide some functions that are required for "real
16.12.2011 14:17, Thomas Steinmaurer wrote:
> Define "wider".;-)
Anybody outside of core development team.
--
SY, SD.
--
Learn Windows Azure Live! Tuesday, Dec 13, 2011
Microsoft is holding a special Learn Window
> 16.12.2011 13:40, Carlos H. Cantu wrote:
>> there is plenty of time for testing.
>
> It is not actually about testing, but rather practical usability. API can
> work without
> any glitch, but don't provide some functions that are required for "real"
> usage. As an
> example - API for trace
> It is not actually about testing, but rather practical usability. API can
> work without
> any glitch, but don't provide some functions that are required for "real"
> usage. As an
> example - API for trace plugins which is enough for single existing plugin
> but missed
> access to BLOBs/a
I see, but we will have new OO API in FB 3 anyway so, I do not see a
reason to not have new functions with the features Alex described too.
Also, traceapi was a totally new thing, while developers are much more
used to the "standard" API, so I guess the "places" to be enhanced
are already known ;-
16.12.2011 13:40, Carlos H. Cantu wrote:
> there is plenty of time for testing.
It is not actually about testing, but rather practical usability. API can
work without
any glitch, but don't provide some functions that are required for "real"
usage. As an
example - API for trace plugins which
DS>C'mon. New API needs a couple of version to stabilize and make usable.
You can't expect
DS> it to become rock solid in 3.0.
Afaik, old API will be still there untouched, so, I dont see so much
problem. We are more than 1 year away of the final release of FB 3,
so, there is plenty of time f
16.12.2011 13:09, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
> But if
> we are going to have serious API change, it's better to do it before
> alpha release.
C'mon. New API needs a couple of version to stabilize and make usable. You
can't expect
it to become rock solid in 3.0.
--
SY, SD.
On 12/16/11 15:58, Carlos H. Cantu wrote:
> AP> Hmm...
> AP> Did we have it in FB3 roadmap?
>
> I doubt that. But afaik, FB 3 is not feature freeze yet ;)
Certainly not.
But there is Q1-2012 as alpha release date. If we do not plan to touch
API, there are no big problems to change protocol before
AP> Hmm...
AP> Did we have it in FB3 roadmap?
I doubt that. But afaik, FB 3 is not feature freeze yet ;)
[]s
Carlos
http://www.firebirdnews.org
FireBase - http://www.FireBase.com.br
AP> On 12/16/11 14:39, Carlos H. Cantu wrote:
>> AP> With 14 nodes between client and server that's known that we
On 12/16/11 14:39, Carlos H. Cantu wrote:
> AP> With 14 nodes between client and server that's known that we have
> AP> problems. We perform too many roundtrips between client and server
> AP> compared with MySQL. Possible solutions are:
> AP> - modify API to have big calls (like attach database,
On 12/16/11 13:39, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
> On 16/12/2011 05:24, Vlad Khorsun wrote:
> So now we're spending time while the database is not even completely
> created.
While we can restore previous behavior (put FW ON flag at header page
when database is created
AP> With 14 nodes between client and server that's known that we have
AP> problems. We perform too many roundtrips between client and server
AP> compared with MySQL. Possible solutions are:
AP> - modify API to have big calls (like attach database, start transaction,
AP> prepare statement and return
On 16/12/2011 05:24, Vlad Khorsun wrote:
So now we're spending time while the database is not even completely
created.
>>> While we can restore previous behavior (put FW ON flag at header page
>>> when database is created but create db file with this flag switched off) i
>>> prefer
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:14:20 -0200, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes
wrote:
> There is no UUID "binary representation" in the RFC. There it's just a
> formated string.
Yes there is a binary representation defined in
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4122.txt in section 4.1.2. It also explicitly
says that b
21 matches
Mail list logo