I'm surprised this hasn't been asked already, maybe its too stupid of a question, but are there any plans to have SQLitening as an SLL for PowerBasic 10. I no an SLL is not needed. I was just wondering.
Are there any issues using PB 10 with SQLitening? I haven't seen any comments here about it.
I had thought of that too.
For the client side SLL won't be bad. The server side could stay the way it is.
I agree, I don't see any reason for the server side to change. It would just make the client side a little cleaner just to have a single .exe
I am not really up on SLL's yet, but since the SQLitening source code is provided, is there any reason why one couldn't create their own SLL from the source?
Maybe I have missed the big picture.... :)
You can also easily modify the source files to use them as include files.
I don't have PB10 yet (waiting for 10.01). When I get it and become proficient with SLL's I will post an opinion. I don't believe there should be any problem using SQLitneing with PB10.
But you would still need the SQLITE.DLL, right?
So, you wouldn't have "just the exe" on the client side...
So maybe we don't need an SLL ??
You don't need Sqlite.dll on the client side in a C/S environment, it is only needed on the server side.
Zlib.dll though would be needed on both sides.
I have been using PB10 for a few weeks and do not think a SQLitening.Sll would be appropriate for the follow reasons:
1. You would still need the following Dll's in your application:
SQLite3.Dll if running local
SQLitiningClient.Dll if running remote
SQLiteningAuxRuts.Dll if compressing or encrypting
SQLiteningZLib.Dll if compressing or running remote
SQLiteningS.Dll or SQLiteningU.Dll if not using PowerBasic
2. Using a Sll will increase your compile times slightly
3. A Sll would not be backwards compatible. I would have to maintain both a Dll and a Sll.
4. If required, you are able to create a Sll using the SQLitening.Bas source.