>
>I love parameterized views, as long as the DBC doesn't break. I've found that the DBC is more sensitive to corruption when an app abends than the dbf's are. And the view is stored only in the DBC. I hate to restore an entire set of tables and have the clerks re-enter data and redo procedures. It would be easy if one could merely overwrite the corrupt DBC files with a good backup set, but it doesn't always work that way because it appears that the table headers and the DBC have a unqiue stamp that connects them, and even though you try to connect a table back to a DBC it won't let you unless you open the table in the "other" mode and answer yes to the unlink question. Then you can add the table back to the restored DBC. No problem for a handful of tables, but when you DBC controls two or three dozen tables - problem.
>
There is this aspect but also the fact that it creates an other structure where bugs can hide. I am not against enforcing rules on the database level if there is dba ... If I am the dba and the developer, then I'd rather put as much as possible under control of the Ctrl+F function, for easy retrieval.

>
>Note about your signature msg: After 34 years as a Republican I've switched to the Libertarian party! Let's keep the ALL of the amendments and tell the PC police to find honest work!

Is that libertarian like in "no God, no Master". That is quite a transition, no? I'm not sure about American politics, but at face value that sounds like a change worse than the packing of your DBC file. In French they say "Il n'y a que les imbéciles qui ne changent jamais d'avis" (only the imbecils never change their minds).

Kind regards,

Marc