Re: Firebird - status update (not ready yet)

On 15 August 2016 at 08:57, Noel Grandin <noelgrandin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just a random thought - it seems like linking firebird into LO is a lot of
> pain.
>
> Is there any real downside to just building firebird as an executable and
> then running it as a sub-process of LO?

The difficulty I run into is actually that there are now two libraries
of firebird,
and they are linked against each other. So the pain would be still
there I think,
if we'd make a sub-process (or it would be even worse,
since we'd need the runnable firebird file too).

But with Lionel's help things seem to turn good now.

Tamás

On 15 August 2016 at 08:57, Noel Grandin <noelgrandin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just a random thought - it seems like linking firebird into LO is a lot of
> pain.
>
> Is there any real downside to just building firebird as an executable and
> then running it as a sub-process of LO?
>
> It just seems to me that we're running "against the grain" here - firebird
> is a large complex application in it's own right, and we're always going to
> be fighting fires if we keep trying to shoehorn it into a situation where
> it's not very comfortable.
>
> Just my 2c