Jean Laeremans wrote: > App started life as a FPW app later rewritten into vfox 6 never had > any problems with it (used in about a 100 locations). > Not that i'm averse to C/S solutions but for that app - warehouse > remember - dbase files was the way to go.
There's nothing wrong with VFP tables as a the backend in certain situations and provided you've coded in best practices to avoid corruption. Basically, I try to touch the data as little as possible. I find that code that does REPLACE after REPLACE after REPLACE has a tendency to be more problematic. Also, ever since I switched to using disconnected datasets (views/cursors), I've had no problems. And that's going back 10 years! Here at Sylvan, we still use free tables (VFP9 SP1 app) and that's not going to change for a long time! We use SDT (Stonefield Database Toolkit) as part of our solution and it, along with tweaks we (well, really just me now since I'm the only remaining dev after the layoff) made really have tightened up the data integrity and lessened our problems. We still get memo corruption with the classic app (written in the early 90s iirc) but they use direct table access (buffered of course) and that's not an approach I'd advise. That's what I went away from back in 1999 after learning of views and also hearing Charlie Coleman's approach to disconnected data cursors. In summary, used the right way, VFP really can kick ass with DBFs. _______________________________________________ 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.
