Charles Daminato wrote:
>
> If you wish to have database access to specific custom information for
> each of your clients, it might be better to develop a local system for
> database accesses.
I have to agree with this. Invariably what will happen (I've been
developing databases for quite some time, so I believe I'm speaking with
the benefit of experience...) is that four "miscellanious" fields will
go in, and then someone will need five. If five go in, someone will
want six. Or they're not long enough. Or they need to be indexed in a
certain way... But you get the point.
It's quite easy to keep a local database that you can extend and modify
to your heart's content. Plus, you will have a much faster turnaround
with changes to the database you maintain than to one that Tucows has
control over.
(Well, at least in theory. They seem to be pretty good at turning over
new version of their client code pretty quickly. :)
> Jose Luis Moya wrote:
> >
> > I would like to suggest to developers for the next version of API to include
> > a number of fields on the database that us RSPs can use depending on our
> > needs. 4 or 5 text fields (RSPfield1,2,3...) that could be included when
> > orders are processed would allow us to incoporate whatever data that might
> > be of interest to us without the need of further implementation on the
> > script.
> > This fields could be visible only with each active domain on the RSP admin
> > interface.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
With Microsoft products, failure is not Derek Glidden
an option - it's a standard component. http://3dlinux.org/
Choose your life. Choose your http://www.tbcpc.org/
future. Choose Linux. http://www.illusionary.com/
