I looked for advantages and found few. I looked for disadvantages and found several. I look for recommendations from others, found none and steered well clear. No regrets.
Fox is a great product. DBCs are the dark alley we try to avoid. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Allen Sent: Thursday, 9 August 2012 5:03 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: corrupted table and database issues I went the other way. Tried DBC's and regretted it. Now no way. Al -----Original Message----- I came to the same conclusion all those years ago. A+ jml On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Dan Covill <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ 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.
