On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Alan Bourke <[email protected]> wrote:


> Again, using UNC paths instead of drive letters would have helped
> somewhat ... this is maybe one of those situations when using something
> other than VFP for the database (i.e. something with built-in security)
> would have been a better idea in hindsight.
-----------------------

Let me get my hindsight glasses.  There it looks better now.  :>

Well with the accounting system in VFP free tables and the need for a
friging huge view to get the proper shipping address instead of the
holding company billing address.  I did what needed to be done seven
or so years ago.

To retrofit today when there is new hardware in the way and have that
just hose up everything!  I mean I found a workstation for the
graphics person who has not worked there in 6 years.  Because of their
absence that workstation was still the same.

I still think that all you people tossing out UNC are still missing
the point.  Internally the pointer to the data NEVER CHANGED.  Let me
repeat that without shouting.  F:\sbtpro\custom was the same.  Why
would the dbc barf if it was opened only via ODBC and the pointer in
that said G: vs E:.

Same blasted container, just referenced via a machine pointer, not
even by fox code.

That is the frustration.  The DBC thinks its on E: fine it works.  The
dbc thinks its on G: "sorry charlie" you are screwed!


-- 
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.

Reply via email to