On Tue, 2022-02-22 at 23:10 +0100, Christian Grün wrote:
> > The other contributor's comments were deeply rooted in particular
> > assumptions that stood in stark contrast to the scenario I had
> > described.
>
> It always depends on the way you interpret others’ comments. But
> we're getting circular again (there must be a reason for it ;).
>
> > To me, "embedded" and "standalone" carry the same
> > implication in the context of a database
>
> I see. With standalone, we want to indicate that the application
> stands “on its own” and needs no external accessors. In contrast,
> something that's embedded is fully dependant on other applications.
>
> In other words, if we use BaseX embedded, we import it as Java
> library. If we use it as standalone processor, we access it
> externally, similar to other installed applications and along with
> all their idiosyncrasies.
>
> Would Java be an option for you?
I understand the distinction. It seems the issues I originally raised
would be the same in both cases. The difference is whether the
application would be built as a collection of scripts versus a full
Java application.
I had planned to begin with Bash scripts calling the command-line
database application, and then migrate to a more integrated application
model (e.g. Java application using a library) only if required by the
evolving needs. Frankly, I would hope to avoid the latter for the
foreseeable future, as both the overall application complexity and
maintenance resources are rather limited.
However, as I explained, the overriding concern is whether the
databases may be maintained inside of projects' folders without any
dependency on resources elsewhere on the file system.