For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of RDBMSes. "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it seems to mean "without a server".
But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me." Many readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that "SQLite is serverless". How can I fix this? What alternative word can I use in place of "serverless" to mean "without a server"? Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for "serverless". An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken. When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a function, that function performs some task on behalf of the application, then the function returns, *and that is all*. No threads are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping. The function does send messages to some other thread or process. The function does not have an event loop. The function does not have its own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller. So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless" without confusing people? "no-server"? "sans-server"? "stackless"? "non-client/server"? -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
