RE: Question for Donald Kibbey
Ha! Will pernickty Johnson is at it again. Integrate as a verb I think applies to mathematics. But if I say My software integrates well I think most people would think A) you have math software ? or B) Your English is bad? Damn! Sir, can't you also get a life? Ain't this a technical group? Can't we assume enough intelligence for you to get the drift? Dennis bugged by your attitude bartlett -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Question for Donald Kibbey
Don, Picked this up on your reply to the guy who thinks strong typing is a virtue. So, what's your point? Use C# against the UV database if that's what you want to do (I and others have been doing this for a couple of years now). I would like to use C# against unidata what do I need to do this. I come from a mvBase background and am a little lost in the U2 market. Thanks much There are only 10 people in the world who understand binary and I am not one of them. George Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, what's your point? Use C# against the UV database if that's what you want to do (I and others have been doing this for a couple of years now). -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Question for Donald Kibbey
-Original Message- From: george r smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:21 PM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: Question for Donald Kibbey There are only 10 people in the world who understand binary and I am not one of them. Your not 01, so you must be 10 ? George George Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Question for Donald Kibbey
George, the best commercial integration option available for MV right now is the Pick Data Provider .NET from Raining Data. When IBM has UO.NET, that situation may change, but developers must research and understand the capabilities of both products before making assumptions and decisions - it would be very wrong to assume that all .NET connectivity products are alike. Honestly you don't need any data provider for .NET integration with MV, you can roll your own connectivity, but there is value in having someone else develop, maintain, and enhance these tools for you. The same holds true for any GUI RAD IDE or Web building product in our market. See my article in the March/April edition of Spectrum Magazine about other .NET connectivity methods for U2. HTH, Tony Technical Editor, C#Builder Kick Start, SAMS Publishing Author, Web Services and .NET articles, Spectrum Magazine Nebula RD now offers C# training with a C# MVP, MCSD trainer. george r smith wrote I would like to use C# against unidata what do I need to do this. I come from a mvBase background and am a little lost in the U2 market. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Question for Donald Kibbey
In a message dated 3/29/2004 2:28:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: George, the best commercial integration option available for MV right now is the Pick Data Provider .NET from Raining Data. But doesn't .NET take up like a gazillion bytes of space? And doesn't integration require an object? As in... integration with .. what? Will -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Question for Donald Kibbey
(adjusting tin foil headgear) You do realize that Micro$oft is really in the hard drive business. Of course .Net takes up a gazillion megabytes and to use my method of getting to UniVerse with C# (so you can type in all those cool looking semi-colons) you'll have to load another half gazillion megabytes of mostly unused J# java stuff too. But, you also get the benefit of holding your nose high and sniffing condescendingly at the mere vb developers who are not allowed to type in the cool semi-colons. Don Kibbey Financial Systems Manager Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett Dunner LLP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/29/04 02:57PM In a message dated 3/29/2004 2:28:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: George, the best commercial integration option available for MV right now is the Pick Data Provider .NET from Raining Data. But doesn't .NET take up like a gazillion bytes of space? And doesn't integration require an object? As in... integration with .. what? Will -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Question for Donald Kibbey
Tony, Get the Pick Data Provider .NET from Raining Data and get the same support as Clink for mvBase - no thanks. There are only 10 people in the world who understand binary and I am not one of them. George Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:29 PM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: Question for Donald Kibbey George, the best commercial integration option available for MV right now is the Pick Data Provider .NET from Raining Data. When IBM has UO.NET, that situation may change, but developers must research and understand the capabilities of both products before making assumptions and decisions - it would be very wrong to assume that all .NET connectivity products are alike. Honestly you don't need any data provider for .NET integration with MV, you can roll your own connectivity, but there is value in having someone else develop, maintain, and enhance these tools for you. The same holds true for any GUI RAD IDE or Web building product in our market. See my article in the March/April edition of Spectrum Magazine about other .NET connectivity methods for U2. HTH, Tony Technical Editor, C#Builder Kick Start, SAMS Publishing Author, Web Services and .NET articles, Spectrum Magazine Nebula RD now offers C# training with a C# MVP, MCSD trainer. george r smith wrote I would like to use C# against unidata what do I need to do this. I come from a mvBase background and am a little lost in the U2 market. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Question for Donald Kibbey
But doesn't .NET take up like a gazillion bytes of space? And doesn't integration require an object? I can't speak of the Pick Data Provider for .NET, however, the .NET framework itself doesn't take up a 'gazillion' bytes. The framework (free download) is between 21 24MB (depending on the framework version) as a single install file. Assume that once it loads onto the system it will take a bit more space but you are probably still less than 50-75MB. Keep in mind that the framework will be built into all new MS operating systems (starting with Windows 2003). I don't really know what you are after with the integration requiring an object. Can you be more specific? Regards, Jim -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Question for Donald Kibbey
MvBase? I think he was saying best provider for MV not for MvBase Right? And I didn't say it, he did. Will the real Will not the fake posing Will's Johnson In a message dated 3/29/2004 3:09:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Will, Unless something has changed since Friday, Raining Data's .NET provider does not connect to mvBase. There are only 10 people in the world who understand binary and I am not one of them. George Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:57 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: Question for Donald Kibbey In a message dated 3/29/2004 2:28:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: George, the best commercial integration option available for MV right now is the Pick Data Provider .NET from Raining Data. But doesn't .NET take up like a gazillion bytes of space? And doesn't integration require an object? As in... integration with .. what? Will -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Question for Donald Kibbey
In a message dated 3/29/2004 3:15:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't really know what you are after with the integration requiring an object. Can you be more specific? Regards, Jim Yes. Integrate as a verb I think applies to mathematics. But if I say My software integrates well I think most people would think A) you have math software ? or B) Your English is bad? Integrate in this sense requires a with and then an object with which it integrates. In other words My software integrates well with SAP, not just My software integrates well. Unless of course you are a salesman who was merely told to repeat that line and hope no one calls you out on it. Will Calling you Out Johnson -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Question for Donald Kibbey
It would have been easier if you just asked me to reread the original post ;-) I think I know what Tony meant with his statement, but, it isn't appropriate for me to answer for him so I won't. Thanks for the English lesson - I think. Regards, Jim [snip] Integrate in this sense requires a with and then an object with which it integrates. In other words My software integrates well with SAP, not just My software integrates well. Unless of course you are a salesman who was merely told to repeat that line and hope no one calls you out on it. [snip] -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: PDP.NET, mvBASE, etc (was Question for Donald Kibbey)
george r smith wrote: Get the Pick Data Provider .NET from Raining Data and get the same support as Clink for mvBase - no thanks. Well George, there are many more engineers and support people working on PDP.NET than on mvBASE. mvBASE is a dead-end DBMS product that RD inherited - Clink was dead when GA had it, don't blame RD for that. mvBASE is essentially R83 over Windows - it's seen it's day and it's about time that support start slowing down for this one. Compare this to Universe and Unidata, for which IBM has proven their intent to support the software unless and until they see as much interest as we see for mvBASE. If you're bashing RD support in general, YMMV, but I can tell you that RD is very motivated to market and support PDP in a way that I haven't seen in years. And as I said in my last post, to make uninformed decisions on matters like this is simply inappropriate. I didn't mean to imply that PDP.NET runs with mvBASE. That's like putting a Corvette body over your VB Bug. Without trying to digress more OT from this U2 forum, you CAN use mvBASE and other MV DBMS products with .NET. In that case I would use FlashCONNECT as the conduit, and create a .NET wrapper around HTTP calls. This sort of interface can give new life to a number of applications that most people have written off. Similar connectivity can be created for U2 apps, just use a different pipe like UO or InterCall. (We have a new pipe here at Nebula RD that is MV platform agnostic. Announcements will be made in about a month.) This is pretty much the topic of my article in the current Spectrum Magazine. Tony, Nebula RD Connecting MV with ... everything -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Question for Donald Kibbey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: George, the best commercial integration option available for MV right now is the Pick Data Provider .NET from Raining Data. But doesn't .NET take up like a gazillion bytes of space? And doesn't integration require an object? As in... integration with .. what? Will I don't know why I need to clarify that statement, the other guys got it fine. An integration option for MV sort of implies between MV and anything else that uses .NET. The word for is just as good a preposition as with. I also said: you don't need any data provider for .NET integration with MV. This implies that .NET itself _is_ the object. Since the whole purpose of .NET is to serve as a common ground for development, if you have integrated with .NET then you have accomplished a goal. This further implies that you can now integrate with anything else that is also .NET-compatible. Yes, connectivity, interaction, and real integration do have different connotations and I try to be more careful about my choice of words. You can connect to anything but unless you have a good API around your connectivity you aren't really integrating. PDP.NET is an API like UO but it is much more, and it does take advantage of .NET where UO does not and UO.NET may not - we'll see. HTH, Tony -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
