[V4RB] design of future pluign

[Keith DeLong]

> on 5/21/03 5:30 PM, Ruslan Zasukhin at sunshine at public.kherson.ua wrote:
> 
>>> Can we not more logically have two distinct objects -- VDataBase for local
>>> work (and legacy code) and VDataBaseServer for client access to a server?
>>> 
>>> Did I miss something??
>> 
>> No. And it seems this can be good way.
>> 
>> Problem is next. Okay, so we will have 2 Database classes in 2 different
>> plugins.
>> 
>> What about all rest classes. For example Vfield and VCursor?
>> REALbasic do not allow us to have 2 the same classes in 2 different plugins.
> 
> This would mean that you would have to maintain two separate code bases for
> each of your products even though there would be major overlap in the logic
> and implementation. This in turn would require one of:
> 
>   1)  two separate compilations or
>   2)  mutually exclusive namespaces.
> 
> The 1st would mean that we could not write apps covering both server and
> local situations. The 2nd would require code duplication both for you, us
> and the solutions we provide.
> 
> I still like the idea of a single "server" situation. Licensing (by
> Paradigma) would control whether the "server" is a single connection or
> multiple connection. Each client would be able to "talk" locally or
> remotely. In the single-person case, this would allow the database and
> client to reside on one machine or on separate machines. Scalability would
> then be a matter of licensing more Valentina seats or more clients.

Jon is making very good sense to me. The problem that comes to mind is that
since OS 9 cannot function as a server so we could not have a local db for
OS 9 -- correct?