|
From: Nando D. <na...@de...> - 2003-02-14 13:23:37
|
Paul, >> PR> It is arguable that .gbak describes a file to be used with gbak. >> PR> If we want .fbak we should perhaps consider changing gbak to fbak (and gfix to >> PR> ffix etc.) Personally, I think I'd rather leave gbak as gbak. >> >> on the other hand, changing the names would fully deliver the benefit >> of coexistence with InterBase. PR> Yes - and break the assumptions of lots of applications (such as batch PR> files, cron jobs) that assume gbak, gfix etc. Is it worth it? MHO: it is worthwhile, advisable and mandatory. :-) those same applications assume that the client is called gds32.dll, which hasn't stopped us from changing it to a more meaningful name. The fact that I propose changing the names does not imply that I am against a compatibility layer. Actually I would welcome it, for compatibility reason, but I think a "clean" Firebird installation (i.e. one that needn't to coexist with IB) should be free from "G"'s and "IB"'s. You also wrote: PR> The original PR> argument from Nando was that changing the naming convention better helps PR> to have Firebird and InterBase installed on the same machine. True. PR> The main PR> reason for that, I would suppose, is that applications could use either PR> server transaparently. That's not my main concern; actually, I regard this kind of "transparency" as more dangerous than useful. The main reason for the proposal to change name is quite the opposite: avoiding calling Firebird's gbak for mistake when I intended to call IB's gbak, and vice-versa. I think it's very common to add the Bin directory to the system search path, and I would like to be able to install a Firebird client without messing up an existing InterBase installation, scripts & all. If one needs to *port* his existing IB scripts & tools to Firebird, then a symlink, rename or Firebird-provided compatibility stub, just like it's done for the client library, will do. >> I'm not sure if Windows' shortcuts can do the same. >> PR> PR> I don't believe they can. MS have made some attempts in that direction PR> but there is still nothing quite so simple as a symlink under Win32. I used to symlink in W2K all the time, I haven't tried with my current WXP. I think I installed a little additional tool from a Resource Kit CD in W2K to allow for that, and I seem to recall that it used a feature of NTFS called junction points or something like that. I can be more specific once I get near a W2K box if anyone's interested. Ciao -- Nando mailto:na...@de... |