Hi Charles The text regarding connection pooling was inserted into the licence agreement when RedBack was first added, and originally that was the target of the change in the licence agreement: any multiplexing or connection concentrating was banned unless you had webshares. This of course meant that if you had any other stateless solution you could *only* use RedBack, whilst people *already had* home grown solutions using UniObjects that were suddenly in breach, where they had not been before.
Also, connection pooling was only added to UO.net and UOJ much later, so there was a period when a change to the licence agreement - in other words, a change to the agreement you had originally signed up to - meant that you could not run your existing software legally even though it was perfectly legal when you wrote it, and there was no technical or commercial solution in place as an alternative (I like RedBack but it doesn't suit all applications). However, it was only 'advertised' to the distributors are part of their handbook, and so many end users didn't know about this (do you generally re-read the licence agreement every time you upgrade?). Hence there was a lot of confusion around. My beef is quite simply with the price of pooled connections. With the cost of the underlying licence, you are talking around 3,000 GBP plus AMC per connection, which means 10 shares costs around twice the amount you can buy SQL Server Enterprise for and get unlimited connections. That is simply untenable. Brian -----Original Message----- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: 24 September 2009 23:40 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement I'm missing something. We ran Redback without connection pooling. Is that an exception because it's a U2 product or were we in violation? _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
