----- Forwarded message from albert drent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 03:01:20 -0500
From: albert drent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [sqlite] [SQLite] Variations in DLLs
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Hi,
I'm sorry to hear that you find the components too complicated. They are based
upon the standard Delphi controls and the functionality was keps as standard as
possible. They are fatter than a simple wrapper where you have to do all by
yourself, but that's a choice anyone has to make for themselves.
About the dll, there was an early isue about the dll in the beta stage of Sqlite
where not all functions where exported. A forum user sent me a working dll and I
put this into the package you downloaded. New versions of the source however are
delivered as a single source download update. You need to install this source
file and recompile the package. Functions like the version where implemented
later. We always advise to use the latest dll to be downloaded from sqlite,
info about this is published on our website.
I sometimes read questions here about our (open-source) components. Just to let
you know there is a forum on our website where you can put all kind of
questions regarding our components. Lots of you actually do. It can be found on
www.aducom.com/sqlite
best regards,
albert drent
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> My simple Delphi test of libSQL worked fine, creating a database
> file, executing some SQL, returning the DLL version.
>
> Used the same code in my app framework, however, and everything kept
> coming up dead: no file created, no error reply, no version message.
>
> The difference turned out to be the DLL. I had installed the Aducom
> controls, which turned out to be fatter and more complicated than
> I wanted. I desinstalled the controls, but left the DLL in place.
>
> The DLL which worked (dated 10/11/04) turned out to be 218K, while
> the Aducom DLL--which did not work with the libSQL calls--is 382K.
>
> Any idea what the extra code (debug?) is doing and why didn't it
> work? (I presume the calls have been changed.)
>
>
>
>
----- End forwarded message -----
