On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Matt Emson wrote:
> Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: > > Any documentation for Interbase 5.5 or 6.0 should be fairly helpful. > > TBH, the way Firebird did security last time I looked, was pretty similar to > the way SQL Server does it if you don't use integrated security. Adding users > was hell, but adding grants etc was pretty simple. > > The bigger issue with Firebird was that it was so unstable (but then, so is > Interbase) and required a lot of fiddling to stop it misbehaving (some of > which might have been the archaic components and poor code I inherited.) I > won't vent my spleen about Interbase/Firebird, except to say: it works really > well till you start writing UDF libraries in Pascal. The Free UDF lib is buggy > and also there are a number of subtly different versions floating around and > no real version control. It has some nice features (Stored Procedures and the > "for select ... suspend" mechanism) but I would never use Interbase in > production again and would need to see pretty conclusive proof that Firebird > had improved greatly. I did read they now have a PL/SQL emulation layer... > that sounds really nice. Strange that you say this. We have firebird databases in production at more than a thousand sites, ranging from simple desktop installations to sites with more than 500 simultaneous users. Firebird didn't fail on us once. I must say that we don't use UDFs at all, except the pretty trivial BIN_AND and BIN_OR. The only negative thing I can say about Firebird is that it can produce a corrupt backup file. Michael. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal