Mensaje
De
29/06/2001 16:18:06
a
29/06/2001 15:05:02
Jay Johengen
Altamahaw-Ossipee, Carolina del Norte, United States
Altamahaw-Ossipee, Carolina del Norte, United States
Miscellaneous
ID de la conversación:
00524299
ID del mensaje:
00525396
Views:
64
>>I think I misunderstood that. In lurking through the posts between you and Craig (and John Peterson?), I got the impression it was proposed to be a replacement for the table foundation used now.
Let's make no mistake ... 2-way with text WOULD/SHOULD eliminate VCX's etc.
I say it's not a "foundation change", because for the "majority" (IMO), the fact that Forms, etc. are backed up by "text" vs "DBF's" is totally irrelevant; ie. the change would be transparent.
A library is a library, whether it's in the form of a .PRG or a .VCX.
It's like asking a "user": "Would you like an SQL Server or an Oracle backend ?" Huh?
Some people don't "want" to give up VCX's, etc. ... but I'm still waiting for a single concrete reason as to why they need to be kept around (other than "that's they way it's always been").
Let's make no mistake ... 2-way with text WOULD/SHOULD eliminate VCX's etc.
I say it's not a "foundation change", because for the "majority" (IMO), the fact that Forms, etc. are backed up by "text" vs "DBF's" is totally irrelevant; ie. the change would be transparent.
A library is a library, whether it's in the form of a .PRG or a .VCX.
It's like asking a "user": "Would you like an SQL Server or an Oracle backend ?" Huh?
Some people don't "want" to give up VCX's, etc. ... but I'm still waiting for a single concrete reason as to why they need to be kept around (other than "that's they way it's always been").