I know I looked at Oracle and M$ SQL Servr, and used them both back in 1998 - 1999 for a client project. Some idiot on a client team convinced the owner of a business that we HAD to go to Oracle instead of using pure VFP for a real simple project because "that is what everyone else was doing." He also pushed to move from VFP for a perfectly good front end to VB for the same reason. He released his version of VB/Oracle into client locations that ahd been running VFP3/5 with previously excellent results, and started to experience a lot of problems (not thoroughly tested). They lost every client location and over $35k in GM R&D funding as a result. It was not a bad database, or poor front end language that caused the problem, it was poor design and a failure to properly test before releasing. Meantime my VFP translations against Oracle ran well, with a few little gotcha's I had to code around.
But years later when I started looking for a more robust and scalable back end to work with I did not even consider leaving VFP as a front end. I looked at M$ SQL Server and Oracle, and decided both wee needlessly expensive given the available free options. Firebird was a little sparse in available documentation, MySQL had a dual license that turned me off, and PostgreSQL had a great balance of cost (free in all cases), features and performance (lots of features and tremendous performance). It was easy to begin to use PostgreSQL, but since most of my older apps really do not need the horsepower it offers it was not worth moving everything "just 'cuz I could." But one of our newer apps uses PostgreSQL as the back end, and Java & VFP for front end and data translation processes with excellent results. So, yes, I agree that PostgreSQL =! Progress. But staying in VFP is still a fine option when it is still capable of working well in its own right. Gil > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]]on Behalf Of Paul McNett > Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 12:53 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Reading/writing to a Progress database from VFP9SP2 > > > Gil, Progress != PostgreSQL... > > Paul > > > Gil Hale wrote: > > Same same. I used ODBC, but I saw no reason it would not > worked with SPT. > > I used SPT for MS SQL Server and Oracle a few years back. It > looks like the > > PostgreSQL setup would be similar for that. I stayed with > simple ODBC and > > parameterized views as that is all I needed at this time. > > > > Gil > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [email protected] > >> [mailto:[email protected]]on Behalf Of MB Software Solutions > >> General Account > >> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 11:37 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: Reading/writing to a Progress database from VFP9SP2 > >> > >> > >> Paul McNett wrote: > >>> MB Software Solutions General Account wrote: > >>>> Got a client who's got a Progress DB and he wants me to be > able to make > >>>> changes (add/edit/delete) to it. Not structural changes...only data > >>>> changes (at least to start). > >>>> > >>>> Has anyone here ever worked with a Progress database from VFP? > >>> I have, via the progress odbc driver that was already installed. > >> > >> It's easy, right? Just like any other RDBMS (via simple SPT)? > >> > >> > >> > >> [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.
