The DBC was designed and implemented by the same folks that brought us the Registry. When we found out that names >10chars were implemented only in the DBC, and not the DBF, we did two things. First, we kept all field names to 10 chars so that IF we went to DBCs we wouldn't be depending on that feature, and second, we deferred the use of DBCs, pending experience in the field. Well, the "deferral" turned into "never", and we have zero regrets. I have yet to see any advantage to a DBC that is not more than offset by increased fragility and maintenance requirements.
If you want a container for tables, go to a SQL database. Dan Covill San Diego On 08/08/12 13:46, MB Software Solutions, LLC wrote: > On 8/8/2012 7:27 AM, James Harvey wrote: >> Thanks for the link, this utility looks interesting, and I see that version >> 2008b includes a DBC testing and repair option. >> >> The error number returned when trying to open the corrupted table was 1683. >> The cdx lost three indexes, and one field name was truncated by one letter >> (pk_hshealth to pk_hshealt). >> >> DBC problems have been the bane of my existence over the years, as they >> don't happen very often, but when they do it seems like it takes voodoo to >> get them fixed. > > > ...which is why I love using MySQL or MS-SQL instead of DBFs for years now. > > _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
