Serverless in this situation means that you don't really have to provision or setup an actual server to handle the database, the client itself just need the ability to read and write an SQLite file.

Because many of the locking things are outsourced to the file system which acts as server for concurrent threads.

A server is something that listens for commands from various clients and executes them.

That just circle jerk. There is an agreed upon def of serverless.

If we reduce things to the absurd we stop being able to reason about things.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serverless_computing

>There is an agreed upon def of serverless.

Sorta but not really. The fact people have worked backwards from marketing names to try and constructively define inherently self-contradictory branding (rather than create a descriptive category into which we place questionable names and ignore them) is an embarrassment for everyone except the marketing departments.

I honestly too dislike all this naming fad and feel the internet’s been taken over by the management and marketting folk .. but still, i try not to hyperbole about it - too bad, but its sorta ok, and it ultimately irrelevant for the job, dbConnection is simply remote.

It's called a buzzword, nothing more nothing less, it's like "cloud computing", eventually it becomes meaningless.

We now have kubernetes tho, and openshift. And i actually believe in docker swarms and compose battalions.

Ill give u that its hard to discern when a thing is a real change and when it isnt, as the titans of industry try to peacock around.

Id just examine what they actually mean, for good measure. Theyre trying to sell things they have no idea about - but thats why the hierarchy of commerce is.

Thank you for saying this. People seem to argue semantics to appear clever and it really pollutes communication and reasoning.

That is not the definition of serverless in question.

If you examine it closely, youll see that they have alot incommon, and that the author defined the term neo-serverless to attempt to adress this - both definitions share the fact that multiple applications (in clientless form) can access the database. He even gives amazon S3 as an example. For neo serverless.

I agree with you that it take a bit to marry both, but the stretch isnt far.

Im also avoiding criticising the Author for not sticking to the main def, since id then be red-herringing the post.

> both definitions share the fact that multiple applications (in clientless form) can access the database

That is like the least relevant thing on that entire page, to be frank. "SQLite is Serverless" is specifically referring to SQLite being an embeddable library that runs in the same process (and same thread, even) as your application vs. the client-server architecture (database in another process, with communication via a port) that DBMSes like MySQL and co have.

> Im also avoiding criticising the Author for not sticking to the main def

The "main definition" (i.e. the web dev buzzword) came into being years after this post was written.

You are right

Well you effectively report some of the workload normally handled by the server to the OS's filesystem layer, that's true. In particular you rely heavily on the FS locking working correctly. Calling the FS a "server" is a bit of a stretch though.