Re: New word to replace "serverless"

"Serverless" has worked flawlessly since inception. Why change now...?

The marketing buzzword usage will disappear...long before Dr Hipp convinces
the list that email is dead even. 😏

Regards.

Brian P Curley



On Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 5:39 PM Jim Dodgen <[email protected]> wrote:

> I vote for ignoring the marketing types and stick with "serverless"
>
> Jim "Jed" Dodgen
> [email protected]
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:20 AM Thomas Kurz <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > I would not choose a new wording. "Serverless" is correct, and just
> > because others start using "serverless" in a wrong manner, I don't see
> any
> > need for a change.
> >
> > Just my 2 cts.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Richard Hipp <[email protected]>
> > To: General Discussion of SQLite Database <
> > [email protected]>
> > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020, 23:18:45
> > 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
> > [email protected]
> > _______________________________________________
> > sqlite-users mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > sqlite-users mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> sqlite-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
>
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users