- When working in remote mode, the client must provide the database name (which is a path relative to the server's database directory) plus a DNS and port.
After all these troubles, I am actually leaning towards NOT providing support for multiple databases. That is, in local mode, the user will just browse the database file, and in remote mode, the client will specify the server DNS and port only (no references to a specific database).
But that will make it hard to justify the server design choices, as adding the new databases in the future will require significant coding changes.
I don't understand this, -- are you saying that
the user provides the database name, which is in the path relative to the server's database directory? Or the user specifies the directory relative to the server's database directory?
My client's command line would be:
> java fbnclient fbn/db1.db fbnhost 8080
And what if the client wants to open another database? You will require that the client exists and restarts:
> java fbnclient fbn/db2.db2 fbnhost 8080
And why is the user required to know the directory on the server?
And what do you do with lock managers, create one for every opened database?
See, -- that's what I am talking about: too many complications, and I am afraid that Sun might mark down our (similar) implementations.
Rototillers convert rich soil into dirt. Please note that this tiny ad is not a rototiller:
Building a Better World in your Backyard by Paul Wheaton and Shawn Klassen-Koophttps://coderanch.com/wiki/718759/books/Building-World-Backyard-Paul-Wheaton