Remote views are a lot simpler than using passthrough. You update a field (or fields), do a tableupdate(), and VFP takes care of all the messy stuff - conflict resolution, determining which fields have to be written back, buffering, transactions, etc ad nauseam.
With passthough, you have to handle all these details yourself. At 02:56 PM 2007-03-30 -0700, you wrote: >The biggest flaw in VFP's views is that they are tied to a DBC, which by >default are shared by who knows how many people. And querying a view >results in VFP wanting to write information to the DBC, which can result >in "view definition has been changed" errors for other people and poor >performance. The code associated with views needs to be compiled, which >is also saved in the dbc. A huge mess, if you ask me. Local views are >somewhat manageable, but why use remote views when SQL Passthrough is >available and so much faster. > >-- >pkm ~ http://paulmcnett.com > > >_______________________________________________ >Post Messages to: [email protected] >Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/dabo-users >Searchable Archives: http://leafe.com/archives/search/dabo-users Larry Bradley Orleans (Ottawa), Ontario, CANADA --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/dabo-users Searchable Archives: http://leafe.com/archives/search/dabo-users This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/dabo-users|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
