No problems Bill. I just hate mis-information. I've been the "go-between" guy between our UD/D3 systems and some VB programmers. I think most of the big challenges are the fact that the worlds are quite different. Like the first time the VB guy asked what the connection string was (after he discovered much to his dismay that it wasn't a default option like SQL) I was really tempted to say "telnet 192.168.0.1" - I knew enough to know that was not what he was looking for - but it took me a while to figure it out. I first did this in D3 and found that a little more "pick-like" than the U2 approach - I still haven't really figured out what the UCI.CONFIG file is good for - except for really confusing things.
I'm currently setting up an account for SQL access for OLEDB connections. I tried to go the UniObjects road but the VB guy just couldn't seem to wrap his mind around it and I didn't have time to do the VB stuff so it was easier this way. The worst part is getting clean and properly setup dict items. I think with a little bit of perseverance pretty much anybody should be able to do it. But I can't argue that it should be easier. We did (somewhat) investigate the pdp.net route but cost considerations precluded it for us. And yes, I am eagerly awaiting the .net tools promised by IBM. Hopefully, the XML basis of .net will make the U2 data structures a lot easier to work with using "external" tools. just some more of my $.02 -- Colin Alfke Calgary, Alberta Canada "Just because something isn't broken doesn't mean that you can't fix it" Stu Pickles >-----Original Message----- >From: Bill H. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 12:33 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [U2] UniVerse in VB .NET > > >Colin: > >Thanks for the info...sorry for providing the list with >misinformation. :-( > >I noticed that UniObjects for .NET is under development and is due for >release sometime in mid 2004. Also, the calls to U2 from .NET >use SQL not >the U2 query language or a READ-type extraction. > >There's been a lot of traffic here about the difficulties of setting up >UniObjects and UniOleDB for use by .NET. I didn't really >think it couldn't >be done, just not by a challenged individual such as myself. :-) > >I've seen IBM presentations about their intent to link U2 to >.NET and those >products are expected to be available in mid to late 2004 (the >current set >of products were not sufficient). I don't believe that for an >MV developer, >building an SQL layer to access and update MV data is the optimal MV >solution. The PDP.NET product seems to be in the right direction and I >assume IBMs forthcoming .NET solution(s) for U2 will be similar. > > >Bill ------- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.u2ug.org/listinfo/u2-users
