So in other words I should have a client that talks to a server application,
which in turn talks to the database?
Again, this n-tier stuff is nice if the person writing the app has to do it
independent of a back end, but when you are writing for a specific
instances, all it seems to do is make things harder...
Adam Lang
Systems Engineer
Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
To: "'Adam Lang'" <aalang@rutgersinsurance.com>;
<pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 12:15 PM
Subject: RE: [INTERFACES] Connecting remotely.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adam Lang [mailto:aalang@rutgersinsurance.com]
> > Sent: 01 November 2000 16:40
> > To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
> > Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Connecting remotely.
> >
> >
> > What's the difference between having the client use ADO to talk to the
> > database as opposed to an interface using the postgresql
> > client libraries?
> >
>
> Nothing, I would say. In my mind, Sergio is saying that any app written
with
> libpq or libpq++ or any other interface that doesn't include some kind of
> middleware is broken. Surely that would include psql, pgAccess, pgAdmin,
> anything using ODBC written in C or VB or C++?
>
> Or have I missed the point completely?
>
> Regards,
> Dave.
>
> >
> > > "Adam Lang" <aalang@rutgersinsurance.com> el día Wed, 1 Nov
> > 2000 09:52:35
> > > -0500, escribió:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > >
> > > >What are people's thoughts?
> > >
> > > people's thoughts are that you really want to design a multi-thier
> > > design (for example a 3 layer design), where
> > >
> > > / client1 (browser)
> > > database <---> bussines rules - client2 (browser)
> > > (ie. apache, php,...) \ .....
> > >
> > >
> > > if your client has direct access to the database, you
> > design is broken...
> > >
> > > sergio
> >
