SQLite Is Serverless
sqlite.org
SQLite Is Serverless
1–10 of 453 posts
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#2Choose your own definitions... but SQLite is not serverless by common parlance.
Author creates two definitions for serverless which don't match the common usage. Serverless is more about DevOps / deploy experience than how the program leverages OS processes internally.
Apparently MS and AWS are ISPs?
Maybe SQLite could be serverless if you defined it as incapable or running as a server on its own?
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#3Why even write this? It's yet another convoluted use of the term and meaningless for SQLite of all things.
Re: downvotes - what are people disagreeing with? That the term is not convoluted? That it's actually useful? That it helps to have more sub-definitions in an industry known for overloaded terms? I guarantee not a single person here has used "classic serverless" over "in-process" or "embedded" in their entire career.
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#4Why even write this? It's yet another convoluted use of the term and meaningless for SQLite of all things. Re: downvotes - what are people disagreeing with? That the term is not convoluted? That it's actually useful? That it helps to have more sub-definitions in an industry known for overloaded terms? I guarantee not a single person here has used "classic serverless" over "in-process" or "embedded" in their entire ca…
I have seen that page for around 10 years or so (except the section that was added in 2018). The term has a very clear meaning and consistent uses within the docs (and consistent with my common sense understanding of the word too). It is not SQLite's fault that AWS and co muddles the water with their usage of the term
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#5Why even write this? It's yet another convoluted use of the term and meaningless for SQLite of all things. Re: downvotes - what are people disagreeing with? That the term is not convoluted? That it's actually useful? That it helps to have more sub-definitions in an industry known for overloaded terms? I guarantee not a single person here has used "classic serverless" over "in-process" or "embedded" in their entire ca…
The article is from 2007, and explicitly calls out that the "neo" usage of the term is different than the original. If you scroll to the fifth line or so, you'll find the update. I didn't have to scroll on my device, though i can imagine there are some smaller devices that may not have that line on the screen when opening the page.
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#6Why even write this? It's yet another convoluted use of the term and meaningless for SQLite of all things. Re: downvotes - what are people disagreeing with? That the term is not convoluted? That it's actually useful? That it helps to have more sub-definitions in an industry known for overloaded terms? I guarantee not a single person here has used "classic serverless" over "in-process" or "embedded" in their entire ca…
The article is from 2007, and explicitly calls out that the "neo" usage of the term is different than the original. If you scroll to the fifth line or so, you'll find the update. I didn't have to scroll on my device, though i can imagine there are some smaller devices that may not have that line on the screen when opening the page.
Where does it say 2007? Regardless it's vague and irrelevant material.
Classic serverless has always been known as "in-process". The attempt at differences seems like adding marketing fluff rather than just removing the page entirely.
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#7Why even write this? It's yet another convoluted use of the term and meaningless for SQLite of all things. Re: downvotes - what are people disagreeing with? That the term is not convoluted? That it's actually useful? That it helps to have more sub-definitions in an industry known for overloaded terms? I guarantee not a single person here has used "classic serverless" over "in-process" or "embedded" in their entire ca…
It describes an important architectural feature of SQLite.
Also, this page was first written in 2007 (or perhaps earlier) [1], long before 'serverless' was applied to things like Amazon Lambda.
[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20071115173112/https://www.sqlit...
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#8Why even write this? It's yet another convoluted use of the term and meaningless for SQLite of all things. Re: downvotes - what are people disagreeing with? That the term is not convoluted? That it's actually useful? That it helps to have more sub-definitions in an industry known for overloaded terms? I guarantee not a single person here has used "classic serverless" over "in-process" or "embedded" in their entire ca…
[deleted]
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article is from 2007, and explicitly calls out that the "neo" usage of the term is different than the original. If you scroll to the fifth line or so, you'll find the update. I didn't have to scroll on my device, though i can imagine there are some smaller devices that may not have that line on the screen when opening the page.
Where does it say 2007? Regardless it's vague and irrelevant material. Classic serverless has always been known as "in-process". The attempt at differences seems like adding marketing fluff rather than just removing the page entirely.
It doesn't say 2007 anywhere, but the page is clearly at least that old.
https://web.archive.org/web/20071115173112/https://www.sqlit...
I also found material from 2004 with the term.
https://www.tcl.tk/community/tcl2004/Presentations/D.Richard...
> Regardless it's vague and irrelevant material
It's not vague at all, the term makes sense to distinguish "in-process" from client/server models. The page also includes an explanation on the very next line.
> Adding an original timestamp to the page would've been 100x more helpful
Not everyone reading about a database product is a developer. A timestamp would not help anyone unfamiliar with the history of the serverless term. The alternative is to rewrite all instances of "serverless" in the documentation which is a waste of time. Modern "serverless" is a stupid buzzword and this page clearly serves as a protest.
Re: SQLite Is Serverless
#10Why even write this? It's yet another convoluted use of the term and meaningless for SQLite of all things. Re: downvotes - what are people disagreeing with? That the term is not convoluted? That it's actually useful? That it helps to have more sub-definitions in an industry known for overloaded terms? I guarantee not a single person here has used "classic serverless" over "in-process" or "embedded" in their entire ca…
It describes an important architectural feature of SQLite. Also, this page was first written in 2007 (or perhaps earlier) [1], long before 'serverless' was applied to things like Amazon Lambda. [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20071115173112/https://www.sqlit...
Adding an original timestamp to the page would've been more helpful than the updated section, or just deleting the page entirely. Or just title it as "SQLite is not client/server".
Nobody goes around talking about "classic serverless" instead of "in-process" which has been around for decades.