First I like to thank all that have responded to my query. I knew that
posting a question that may lead me to dropping U2 as a database may cause
some concern as to whether that is appropriate for this list.
I believe it is, because I want the opinions of people who have
experience/exposure in
I can say that in the healthcare field Cache' is a significantly easier sell
than U2.
Robert F. Porter, MCSE, CCNA, ZCE, OCP-Java
Lead Sr. Programmer / Analyst
Laboratory Information Services
Ochsner Health System
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain
yes, if your application is tied to SB, then your platform options are limited.
But it sounds like a lot of developers want to move away from SB into more
mainstream web-oriented applications. You want to compare building web
applications on Cache vs U2 (and vs non-mv platforms as well, because
Yes, Intersystems has developers, support engineers, and salesmen who worked
for other mv vendors. But Cache isn't jbase-centric. It has emulations for all
the MV variants.
Mumps is still around, though most of the large vendors were consolidated by
Intersystems. After that, Intersystems
Cache gives you a lot of flexibility here. Data is stored in databases. Each
database is a single OS file. But you use the data through a Namespace (called
an account in mv). By default all the mv files for a namespace/account are in
a single database. But you can map individual files or even
On 10/04/11 02:47, Dawn Wolthuis wrote:
I am currently looking at how U2 fits in the cloud environment with
products like Microsoft Azure and I think the model of U2 where each table
is a separate os file is better for cloud computing than Cache's one
system
file (similar to the
From: David Jordan
From my observations, I don't quite agree on Tony's
summation of Cache vs U2.
You are of course welcome to disagree, and I might even agree
with some of your points. But several of your points disagree
with statements that I didn't make. Rather than go through each
in
Rather my point about the Pick issue is not to say that it is not a problem, it
is more the perception of how to sell Pick to senior executives. Business
management are not as concerned about technology as they are about results.
They may have a concern or a perception about the technology
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Wols Lists antli...@youngman.org.ukwrote:
On 10/04/11 02:47, Dawn Wolthuis wrote:
I am currently looking at how U2 fits in the cloud environment with
products like Microsoft Azure and I think the model of U2 where each
table
is a separate os file is
And with your last note yes, we are in complete agreement. :)
Thanks.
T
___
U2-Users mailing list
U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Hi Don -- Yes, I have experience with UniData, SQL and SQL DBMS's, and I now
work in Cache' However, I have only a very tiny bit of experience with SB
and none with a conversion from SB+UniData to Cache'. Certainly I have a
deep fondness for U2, but I had to make a good business decision a couple
OK, now I'm not finding the ones I thought were on this channel, so search
youtube for MultiValue and you will see both a little 6 minute-ish video and
a 4-part video related to Cache for MV developers.
--dawn
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Dawn Wolthuis dw...@tincat-group.comwrote:
Hi Don --
From: Don Verhagen
I want to ask if anyone has had any experience with Cache and
also has
experience with U2 and SQL.
I don't sell Caché and I don't get any kind of compensation for
saying something nice about them, but I will anyway. ;)
Here is a summary in my blog from 4 years ago:
With any platform change you have to ask what you are getting and what you
are losing compared with where you are.
If you want to evolve the application then your only option is to stay with
U2 because that is the only platform that SB will run on. OK, there was an
attempt to emulate SB on
From my observations, I don't quite agree on Tony's summation of Cache vs U2.
Cache has the same burden as U2 in that they came from mumps where U2 came
from Pick. The biggest difference between Cache and U2 is marketing where
Cache takes on RDBMS and U2 is apologetic for being Pick, but that
On 09/04/11 23:57, David Jordan wrote:
From my observations, I don't quite agree on Tony's summation of Cache vs U2.
Cache has the same burden as U2 in that they came from mumps where U2 came
from Pick. The biggest difference between Cache and U2 is marketing where
Cache takes on RDBMS and U2
Comments within. Again, I am a U2 fan, so I am trying to do a comparison,
not a sales job, although I'm guessing it might sound a bit like Cache
evangelism. I am pragmatic about my choices, so even if I want to like a
more pure MultiValue platform (I started my career on a Pr1me computer,
prior to
I am not familiar with UniData and I am aware that UniVerse has had better SQL
support than uniData. I have found that UniVerse SQL performs well. The
UniVerse query engine is used by both SQL and retrieve, where they pass the
query over to an optimizer engine. One thing that has been a bit
18 matches
Mail list logo
