But an *additional* adapter is not needed if you query the version of
the server you're connecting to and dynamically adjust the behavior of
the single DBMSSQL adapter as appropriate (at run-time).
Fedor Karpelevitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I do not care for the name.
> I do not care for the version number.
> I do not care for UI. (definetly)
> I do not care for internals.
> I could not care less for the money M$ spent on it.
> What I care about is behaviour. And it is different. And that is why adapter
> is needed.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daniel Rall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 10:26 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] limit fixes
> >
> >
> > Fedor Karpelevitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > what's wrong with another adapter? MSSQL 7 is a different
> > DB from MSSQL 6.5
> > > and it should have it's own adapter. Any good reason against it?
> >
> > Huh--how is it a different database? Isn't it just a newer version of
> > the same RDBMS (which was Sybase a long, long time ago)? I cut my
> > teeth on 6.5, and have used 7 a bit, and the UI is very similar. Are
> > the internals that different, then? I would see M$ throwing away all
> > the money they spent to buy that database in the first place for a new
> > one...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
