Hmmm...sounds reasonable. It can be all integrated security though, that must only apply to NT....must be SQL security for Win 9x. You know, the good old Userid=sa, password=?

Installed SQL Server 7 Enterprise today; what a PIA. Took me 3 hours to get it working. Anyway, you have raised a lot of good points on why MSDE may be a good tool to get to know. But, I still think the restrictions are heinous. For that amount of hassle, I'll install SQL Server 7 Desktop and be done with it.

Have you ever played with Sybase SQL Anywhere? Damn fine product. Had to get to know it on a Powerbuilder project and learned to love it.

I was only half-joking when I mentioned an ADO framework. Or, at least, an unbound framework with a data services tier that could adapt to MSDE or SQL Server or whatever.....


>Yes, it does keep a Tx. log. And, I have it on good authority that integrated security is in fact, supported. Based on the website, when you install MSDE, you have the SQL-DMO objects at your disposal. If this is true, then you can define users, roles, etc.
>
>
>>Hi JVP -----
>>
>>I agree. With the need for strong security and transaction logging, a dedicated server database is required regardless of topology. DBFs fall down in that respect. I haven't played with MSDE too mush; does it keep a trnxlog?
>>
>>
>>>OK John, consider this scenario:
>>>
>>>I have a data-set that will never grow beyond 10 mb's. However, the data set contains confidential information and needs inherent security. Also, because of certain requirements, a detailed transaction log needs to be kept.
>>>
>>>Is the data-set small? Yes.
>>>Will DBF's work? No.
>>>
>>>I could have taken this example further to really skew it toward SQL-Server, or some other server RDBMS. Then again, I did'nt have to.
>>>
>>>This is an interesting discussion. Let's keep it going...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>If an application is never going to grow beyond a set, reasonable amount of users I was advocating sticking with the good ole DBF format.
>>><<