>>I was very disappointed by Interbase/Firebird. It seemed to me like a
>>MS-Access: a database-engine that works on regular files
> What gave you that idea? Firebird (and InterBase of course) use
> a at least 1 file per database, but that's all. Can you define
> "regular files"?
My idea of Firebird is the following:
There a library that can access a file and use it as a database.
that very much like using the MS-Jet-Engine which is the backend to
>>OK, there is a network-server component, but it really has nothing to do
>>with an enterprise-DB.
> There's a server side process waiting for incoming connections
> just like with MySQL, MS SQL Server, Oracle etc etc...
Well, the network-server seemed to me like an application that uses the
library i mentioned above. It doesn't seem to me like a big application
like MySql or MaxDB. In other words: Firebird seems to be light weight
DBMS. MySQL and MaxDB have a multi-threaded kernel that maintains its
own cache, coordinates locks, etc.
I don't think that Firebird's architecture is like that.