This week's book giveaway is in the Mac OS forum. We're giving away four copies of a choice of "Take Control of Upgrading to Yosemite" or "Take Control of Automating Your Mac" and have Joe Kissell on-line! See this thread for details.
Hi, I'm nearing completion of the assignment and I thought I had it sussed. Then I read Marks comment about the server only specifying the db name and started to get nervous. Now, I assumed (theres that horrible word) that the user would specify which db file to open. I'm working against an old (2yrs+) assignment where I have had to write a data importer and therefore can have any db name. Do people think this is a reasonable assumption. It means that my Db server can handle connections to multiple Data objects with multiple clients (via RMI) which was not too difficult to impl. My client command line looks something like : dbclient localDbname.db dbclient remoteDbname.db client.policy hostname [port]
What I would like to know is if anyone else has implemented this type of solution and passed or if people think that this is so far wide of the mark I should consider rewriting bits to support only one Db per server, which would be simpler. Any comments may help me sleep tonight
Remember, you are asked to code for reuse. And I've said it before: FBN is the only project I've done that had just one database table. Given that, and how trivial it is to do, coding the server to handle multiple tables is not an oddball idea at all. My server code could handle multiple tables. I passed (>2 years ago) with, if memory serves, full marks on design. - Peter
Joined: Feb 26, 2002
Thanks for the quick reply Peter. Anyone else been down this route?