I started using views when they first came out. So I have used the dbc since the very beginning. With Stonefield and the dbc I have supported tons of different applications with no problems at all. The main thing I use the dbc for is modifying data structures on installed apps and fixing problems like you encountered.
Jeff --------------- Jeff Johnson [email protected] (623) 582-0323 www.san-dc.com On 08/09/2012 04:08 AM, James Harvey wrote: > It's been so long now that I cannot remember what drove me to use the DBC > for this project. I have a number of other projects that do NOT take > "advantage" of the DBC. > > Now I'm wondering what grief and aggravation would I endure if I were to > decide to free the tables and do away with the DBC. > > First is field names longer than 10 char (there aren't too many of these) > > Primary key fields? > > What else would recommend a DBC??? > > James E Harvey > Corresponding Officer/M.I.S. > Hanover Shoe Farms, Inc. > www.hanoverpa.com > office: 717-637-8931 > cell: 717-887-2565 > fax: 717-637-6766 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of geoff > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 3:37 AM > To: 'ProFox Email List' > Subject: RE: corrupted table and database issues > > 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.
