Quoting my previous reply:
> For example, you can
prevent BaseX from reading the configuration from disk [1].
And one more quote (as I’m not sure it has been fully understood):
> 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.
If you call BaseX as an external and independent application via scripting, you can't expect it to behave like an embedded library.
On Wed, 2022-02-23 at 00:22 +0100, Christian Grün wrote:
> > 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.
>
> As I tried to explain, no configuration files will be written to disk
> if BaseX is invoked via Java as described. I understood that's one of
> the side effects you wanted to circumvent?
I do want to avoid writing (or reading) configuration files.
Are you explaining that these files would be accessed by the standalone
application that is packaged with the distribution, but their use may
be avoided by accessing the database directly through the library layer
from a custom application?