Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!dgis!jkrueger
From: jkrueger@dgis.dtic.dla.mil (Jon)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: data base client/server communications
Message-ID: <750@dgis.dtic.dla.mil>
Date: 9 Feb 90 17:19:27 GMT
References: <2097@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), Alexandria VA
Lines: 34

paulf@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu (paul friberg) writes:

>why use a separtion mechanism if you are going to give up performance?
>...I personally feel that efficiency should rule on the 
>side of performance.

If performance is more important to you than correctness, safety,
robustness, security, then skip any and all protection mechanisms
you like.  Go ahead.  Make your day :-)

>Why not use a library for the network code?

You use a library either way.  The only thing separate processes
add (as pertains to this discussion) is isolation of errors.  If
you don't need that, skip it.

>What does security have to do with a separation mechanism anyway?

Consider how you will assure limited shared access to data in a hostile
environment.  Examine the alternate mechanisms of file permissions.  If
still confused, see Stonebraker et. al., The INGRES Papers.
 
>Can't that be implemented straight up through a library just 
>the same?

Depends entirely on the semantics available to the functions.
Consider why you can't write a library to provide time services
on a machine without an addressable clock.

-- Jon
-- 
Jonathan Krueger    jkrueger@dtic.dla.mil   uunet!dgis!jkrueger
The Philip Morris Companies, Inc: without question the strongest
and best argument for an anti-flag-waving amendment.