On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Paul McNett <[email protected]> wrote: > On 4/27/10 11:19 AM, Stephen Russell wrote: >> DBFs have no security as my first problem with them. They are >> independent files that work together. Before the dbc there was no >> overall control of the mess. The dbc was just meta data of the mess >> and if hosed it all was hosed. Last complaint was backup and >> restoration of data as well as a log of changes since last backup. >> All the reasons why I didn't look back to dbfs when I got working with >> better technology. > > You know what the main problem with DBF's are? They are too tightly-bound > with the > features of the programming language. > > Using something else - anything else - requires some work to cross the > interface. > This work turns out to make your code much more portable, secure, reliable, > and stable. -------------------------
Untill you take straight text and pass that back to the db, then you get a whole new set of people scared. Or you just craft your statements on the fly, that builds DBA confidence real quick! Running away fast now! -- Stephen Russell Sr. Production Systems Programmer CIMSgts 901.246-0159 cell _______________________________________________ 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.
