New word to replace "serverless"

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
74 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

New word to replace "serverless"

Richard Hipp-3
For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
RDBMSes.  "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it
seems to mean "without a server".

But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that
means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me."  Many
readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for
"serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that
"SQLite is serverless".

How can I fix this?  What alternative word can I use in place of
"serverless" to mean "without a server"?

Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for
"serverless".  An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be
running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most
embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken.

When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a
function, that function performs some task on behalf of the
application, then the function returns, *and that is all*.  No threads
are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping.  The
function does send messages to some other thread or process.  The
function does not have an event loop.  The function does not have its
own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work
itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller.

So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless"
without confusing people?

"no-server"?
"sans-server"?
"stackless"?
"non-client/server"?


--
D. Richard Hipp
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New word to replace "serverless"

Edward Lau
I like "NO-SERVER"


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Hipp <[hidden email]>
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database <[hidden email]>
Sent: Mon, Jan 27, 2020 2:18 pm
Subject: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
RDBMSes.  "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it
seems to mean "without a server".

But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that
means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me."  Many
readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for
"serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that
"SQLite is serverless".

How can I fix this?  What alternative word can I use in place of
"serverless" to mean "without a server"?

Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for
"serverless".  An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be
running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most
embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken.

When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a
function, that function performs some task on behalf of the
application, then the function returns, *and that is all*.  No threads
are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping.  The
function does send messages to some other thread or process.  The
function does not have an event loop.  The function does not have its
own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work
itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller.

So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless"
without confusing people?

"no-server"?
"sans-server"?
"stackless"?
"non-client/server"?


--
D. Richard Hipp
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New word to replace "serverless"

Roman Fleysher-2
In reply to this post by Richard Hipp-3
Perhaps "server" is not the right emphasis? Maybe it is the client? Thus, "clientless"? This means that each SQlite session serves itself. Self-sufficient.

Roman
________________________________
From: sqlite-users <[hidden email]> on behalf of Richard Hipp <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 5:18 PM
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database <[hidden email]>
Subject: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

CAUTION: This email comes from an external source; the attachments and/or links may compromise our secure environment. Do not open or click on suspicious emails. Please click on the “Phish Alert” button on the top right of the Outlook dashboard to report any suspicious emails.

For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
RDBMSes.  "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it
seems to mean "without a server".

But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that
means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me."  Many
readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for
"serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that
"SQLite is serverless".

How can I fix this?  What alternative word can I use in place of
"serverless" to mean "without a server"?

Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for
"serverless".  An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be
running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most
embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken.

When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a
function, that function performs some task on behalf of the
application, then the function returns, *and that is all*.  No threads
are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping.  The
function does send messages to some other thread or process.  The
function does not have an event loop.  The function does not have its
own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work
itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller.

So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless"
without confusing people?

"no-server"?
"sans-server"?
"stackless"?
"non-client/server"?


--
D. Richard Hipp
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailinglists.sqlite.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsqlite-users&amp;data=02%7C01%7Croman.fleysher%40einsteinmed.org%7Cacbff015160a4adadbf708d7a376e761%7C9c01f0fd65e040c089a82dfd51e62025%7C0%7C0%7C637157603390189642&amp;sdata=QLjXenXheo7mS3o3MEqmxWaD1aKv4oCUkkHJ4zwCYlM%3D&amp;reserved=0
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New word to replace "serverless"

Peter da Silva-2
In reply to this post by Richard Hipp-3
Local?

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020, 16:19 Richard Hipp, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
> RDBMSes.  "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it
> seems to mean "without a server".
>
> But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that
> means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me."  Many
> readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for
> "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that
> "SQLite is serverless".
>
> How can I fix this?  What alternative word can I use in place of
> "serverless" to mean "without a server"?
>
> Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for
> "serverless".  An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be
> running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most
> embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken.
>
> When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a
> function, that function performs some task on behalf of the
> application, then the function returns, *and that is all*.  No threads
> are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping.  The
> function does send messages to some other thread or process.  The
> function does not have an event loop.  The function does not have its
> own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work
> itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller.
>
> So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless"
> without confusing people?
>
> "no-server"?
> "sans-server"?
> "stackless"?
> "non-client/server"?
>
>
> --
> D. Richard Hipp
> [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> sqlite-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
>
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New word to replace "serverless"

skywalk
Client (only) db
Sequential db

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 5:27 PM Peter da Silva <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Local?
>
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2020, 16:19 Richard Hipp, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> > to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
> > RDBMSes.  "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it
> > seems to mean "without a server".
> >
> > But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that
> > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me."  Many
> > readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for
> > "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that
> > "SQLite is serverless".
> >
> > How can I fix this?  What alternative word can I use in place of
> > "serverless" to mean "without a server"?
> >
> > Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for
> > "serverless".  An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be
> > running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most
> > embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken.
> >
> > When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a
> > function, that function performs some task on behalf of the
> > application, then the function returns, *and that is all*.  No threads
> > are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping.  The
> > function does send messages to some other thread or process.  The
> > function does not have an event loop.  The function does not have its
> > own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work
> > itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller.
> >
> > So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless"
> > without confusing people?
> >
> > "no-server"?
> > "sans-server"?
> > "stackless"?
> > "non-client/server"?
> >
> >
> > --
> > D. Richard Hipp
> > [hidden email]
> > _______________________________________________
> > sqlite-users mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> sqlite-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
>
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New word to replace "serverless"

Esdras Mayrink
In reply to this post by Richard Hipp-3
Runtimeless?
Not sure if the word runtimeless would be accurate to describe SQLite.
I'm not sure if it is even a word, I'm not a native english speaker.

But here is my contribution.

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 7:19 PM Richard Hipp <[hidden email]> wrote:

> For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
> RDBMSes.  "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it
> seems to mean "without a server".
>
> But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that
> means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me."  Many
> readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for
> "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that
> "SQLite is serverless".
>
> How can I fix this?  What alternative word can I use in place of
> "serverless" to mean "without a server"?
>
> Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for
> "serverless".  An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be
> running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most
> embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken.
>
> When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a
> function, that function performs some task on behalf of the
> application, then the function returns, *and that is all*.  No threads
> are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping.  The
> function does send messages to some other thread or process.  The
> function does not have an event loop.  The function does not have its
> own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work
> itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller.
>
> So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless"
> without confusing people?
>
> "no-server"?
> "sans-server"?
> "stackless"?
> "non-client/server"?
>
>
> --
> D. Richard Hipp
> [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> sqlite-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
>
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New word to replace "serverless"

Tim Streater-3
In reply to this post by Richard Hipp-3
On 27 Jan 2020, at 22:18, Richard Hipp <[hidden email]> wrote:

> For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
> RDBMSes.  "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it
> seems to mean "without a server".
>
> But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that
> means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me."  Many
> readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for
> "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that
> "SQLite is serverless".
>
> How can I fix this?  What alternative word can I use in place of
> "serverless" to mean "without a server"?

Fundamentally SQLite is a library that you link in, either at app build time or later at runtime. I'd prefer a term that suggests this.


--
Cheers  --  Tim
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New word to replace "serverless"

Gerry Snyder-4
In reply to this post by Richard Hipp-3
I think of it as being "standalone."

Gerry Snyder

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 3:19 PM Richard Hipp <[hidden email]> wrote:

> For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
> RDBMSes.  "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it
> seems to mean "without a server".
>
> But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that
> means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me."  Many
> readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for
> "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that
> "SQLite is serverless".
>
> How can I fix this?  What alternative word can I use in place of
> "serverless" to mean "without a server"?
>
> Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for
> "serverless".  An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be
> running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most
> embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken.
>
> When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a
> function, that function performs some task on behalf of the
> application, then the function returns, *and that is all*.  No threads
> are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping.  The
> function does send messages to some other thread or process.  The
> function does not have an event loop.  The function does not have its
> own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work
> itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller.
>
> So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless"
> without confusing people?
>
> "no-server"?
> "sans-server"?
> "stackless"?
> "non-client/server"?
>
>
> --
> D. Richard Hipp
> [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> sqlite-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
>
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New word to replace "serverless"

Jose Isaias Cabrera-4
In reply to this post by Richard Hipp-3

Richard Hipp, on Monday, January 27, 2020 05:18 PM, wrote...

>
> For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
> RDBMSes.  "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it
> seems to mean "without a server".
>
> But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that
> means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me."  Many
> readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for
> "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that
> "SQLite is serverless".

It's kinda funny.  Back in 2006 I needed to create an app with SQL but on a local machine.  MySQL was too big for the simple app, so, I wanted something without a server.  So, I actually searched on "serverless SQL engine", and BOOOM!, sqlite.org came up.  Now you want to take that away from me. :-)
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New word to replace "serverless"

D Burgess
standalone seems reasonable.

To confuse things further, I have seen Sqlite embedded  in an embedded
web server,  serverless doesn't fit that case.

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 9:45 AM Jose Isaias Cabrera <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> Richard Hipp, on Monday, January 27, 2020 05:18 PM, wrote...
> >
> > For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> > to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
> > RDBMSes.  "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it
> > seems to mean "without a server".
> >
> > But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that
> > means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me."  Many
> > readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for
> > "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that
> > "SQLite is serverless".
>
> It's kinda funny.  Back in 2006 I needed to create an app with SQL but on a local machine.  MySQL was too big for the simple app, so, I wanted something without a server.  So, I actually searched on "serverless SQL engine", and BOOOM!, sqlite.org came up.  Now you want to take that away from me. :-)
> _______________________________________________
> sqlite-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New word to replace "serverless"

Jay Kreibich
In reply to this post by Richard Hipp-3
I often describe it as “self contained.”

  -j

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 27, 2020, at 4:19 PM, Richard Hipp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
> RDBMSes.  "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it
> seems to mean "without a server".
>
> But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that
> means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me."  Many
> readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for
> "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that
> "SQLite is serverless".
>
> How can I fix this?  What alternative word can I use in place of
> "serverless" to mean "without a server"?
>
> Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for
> "serverless".  An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be
> running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most
> embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken.
>
> When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a
> function, that function performs some task on behalf of the
> application, then the function returns, *and that is all*.  No threads
> are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping.  The
> function does send messages to some other thread or process.  The
> function does not have an event loop.  The function does not have its
> own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work
> itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller.
>
> So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless"
> without confusing people?
>
> "no-server"?
> "sans-server"?
> "stackless"?
> "non-client/server"?
>
>
> --
> D. Richard Hipp
> [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> sqlite-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New word to replace "serverless"

John McMahon-2
In reply to this post by Richard Hipp-3
Define what "serverless" means to you in the SQLite context and provide
a link or pop-up to that definition wherever "serverless" occurs in the
documentation. Perhaps also include what it doesn't mean if you think
this is becoming an issue.

How others choose to define "serverless" should not be your problem.

Just my pennies worth,
John


On 28/01/2020 09:18, Richard Hipp wrote:

> For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
> RDBMSes.  "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it
> seems to mean "without a server".
>
> But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that
> means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me."  Many
> readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for
> "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that
> "SQLite is serverless".
>
> How can I fix this?  What alternative word can I use in place of
> "serverless" to mean "without a server"?
>
> Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for
> "serverless".  An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be
> running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most
> embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken.
>
> When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a
> function, that function performs some task on behalf of the
> application, then the function returns, *and that is all*.  No threads
> are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping.  The
> function does send messages to some other thread or process.  The
> function does not have an event loop.  The function does not have its
> own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work
> itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller.
>
> So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless"
> without confusing people?
>
> "no-server"?
> "sans-server"?
> "stackless"?
> "non-client/server"?
>
>

--
Regards
    John McMahon
       [hidden email]

When people say "The climate has changed before,"
these are the kinds of changes they're talking about.
https://xkcd.com/1732/

_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New word to replace "serverless"

Richard Hipp-3
In reply to this post by Richard Hipp-3
daemon-less?
--
D. Richard Hipp
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New word to replace "serverless"

Luke Amery-2
in-process ?

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 10:19 AM Richard Hipp <[hidden email]> wrote:

> daemon-less?
> --
> D. Richard Hipp
> [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> sqlite-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
>
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New word to replace "serverless"

Jen Pollock
In reply to this post by Richard Hipp-3
"Server-free"? It's reasonably close to serverless, but doesn't have the
conflicting meaning.

Jen

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 05:18:45PM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote:

> For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
> RDBMSes.  "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it
> seems to mean "without a server".
>
> But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that
> means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me."  Many
> readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for
> "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that
> "SQLite is serverless".
>
> How can I fix this?  What alternative word can I use in place of
> "serverless" to mean "without a server"?
>
> Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for
> "serverless".  An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be
> running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most
> embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken.
>
> When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a
> function, that function performs some task on behalf of the
> application, then the function returns, *and that is all*.  No threads
> are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping.  The
> function does send messages to some other thread or process.  The
> function does not have an event loop.  The function does not have its
> own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work
> itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller.
>
> So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless"
> without confusing people?
>
> "no-server"?
> "sans-server"?
> "stackless"?
> "non-client/server"?
>
>
> --
> D. Richard Hipp
> [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> sqlite-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New word to replace "serverless"

Donald Shepherd
In reply to this post by Richard Hipp-3
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 10:19 am, Richard Hipp <[hidden email]> wrote:

> daemon-less?
> --
> D. Richard Hipp
> [hidden email]


In-process? Same concept but defining it by what it is rather than what it
isn't.

Regards,
Donald Shepherd.

> <[hidden email]>
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New word to replace "serverless"

Peter da Silva-2
Server-free sounds good. Standalone too. Integrated maybe?

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 17:54 Donald Shepherd <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 10:19 am, Richard Hipp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > daemon-less?
> > --
> > D. Richard Hipp
> > [hidden email]
>
>
> In-process? Same concept but defining it by what it is rather than what it
> isn't.
>
> Regards,
> Donald Shepherd.
>
> > <[hidden email]>
> _______________________________________________
> sqlite-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
>
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New word to replace "serverless"

Simon Slavin-3
In reply to this post by Donald Shepherd
On 27 Jan 2020, at 11:53pm, Donald Shepherd <[hidden email]> wrote:

> In-process? Same concept but defining it by what it is rather than what it isn't.

This comes closest to what I think needs stating.  What you're trying to say is that there's no process (on the accessing computer or some other computer across a network) which handles and coordinates all the database access.

I was thinking about the word 'decentralised' but that seems to mean something that used to be central.  'uncentralised' is a word which just needs explaining.  And 'uncoordinated' doesn't mean the right thing in English.

One problem is that 'server' has too many meanings now.  SQLite is certainly 'serverless', but that doesn't say enough.  Does 'decentralised' mean anything useful to the sort of person who might need to read that description ?
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New word to replace "serverless"

John McMahon-2
In reply to this post by Richard Hipp-3
"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful
tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor
less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean
so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -
that's all."

- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass


On 28/01/2020 09:18, Richard Hipp wrote:

> For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way
> to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of
> RDBMSes.  "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it
> seems to mean "without a server".
>
> But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that
> means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me."  Many
> readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for
> "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that
> "SQLite is serverless".
>
> How can I fix this?  What alternative word can I use in place of
> "serverless" to mean "without a server"?
>
> Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for
> "serverless".  An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be
> running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most
> embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken.
>
> When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a
> function, that function performs some task on behalf of the
> application, then the function returns, *and that is all*.  No threads
> are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping.  The
> function does send messages to some other thread or process.  The
> function does not have an event loop.  The function does not have its
> own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work
> itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller.
>
> So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless"
> without confusing people?
>
> "no-server"?
> "sans-server"?
> "stackless"?
> "non-client/server"?
>
>

--
Regards
    John McMahon
       [hidden email]

When people say "The climate has changed before,"
these are the kinds of changes they're talking about.
https://xkcd.com/1732/

_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New word to replace "serverless"

Deon Brewis
In reply to this post by Richard Hipp-3
In C/C++ the closest concept is a Header Only Library.

Except that SQLITE is not only C+++, and it's not header only...

Library Only Implementation?
In-Proc / In-Thread Library?
Self Contained Library?

Looks like I'm on a generally "Library" theme here...

- Deon

-----Original Message-----
From: sqlite-users <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Richard Hipp
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 2:19 PM
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database <[hidden email]>
Subject: [sqlite] New word to replace "serverless"

For many years I have described SQLite as being "serverless", as a way to distinguish it from the more traditional client/server design of RDBMSes.  "Serverless" seemed like the natural term to use, as it seems to mean "without a server".

But more recently, "serverless" has become a popular buzz-word that means "managed by my hosting provider rather than by me."  Many readers have internalized this new marketing-driven meaning for "serverless" and are hence confused when they see my claim that "SQLite is serverless".

How can I fix this?  What alternative word can I use in place of "serverless" to mean "without a server"?

Note that "in-process" and "embedded" are not adequate substitutes for "serverless".  An RDBMS might be in-process or embedded but still be running a server in a separate thread. In fact, that is how most embedded RDBMSes other than SQLite work, if I am not much mistaken.

When I say "serverless" I mean that the application invokes a function, that function performs some task on behalf of the application, then the function returns, *and that is all*.  No threads are left over, running in the background to do housekeeping.  The function does send messages to some other thread or process.  The function does not have an event loop.  The function does not have its own stack. The function (with its subfunctions) does all the work itself, using the callers stack, then returns control to the caller.

So what do I call this, if I can no longer use the word "serverless"
without confusing people?

"no-server"?
"sans-server"?
"stackless"?
"non-client/server"?


--
D. Richard Hipp
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
1234