yes, it's open enough ; it would still work ok in a network environment if they front end it with
a network tcp server taking the sql requests from a tcp port and then accessing the database
on behalf of the network user; the network server could even manage the concurrency with file level
or even row level locking ; it is quite remarkable how even a "primitive" flat file system works so
well after 5 years of data , just because it shares basically the same algorithm for search which is
to use index files , which are either sorted and binary searched, or arranged as hash buckets,
or btrees , and the algorithm technology stayed the same for the last 20 years ( and isn't likely going to change either).
http://www.clicketyclick.dk/databases/xbase/format/
On Wed May 24 22:14 , Mario Ruiz sent:
It appears that my use of the word "open" is causing some reactions. My
use of "open", was meant as in a "flat file system" context where the
access to the data is open and does not requires user or application
credentials to access the data file to manipulate or apply any
transformation to the data.
Agree Richard, M$ likes to keep it all wrapped.
mario
Richard Hosking wrote:
> Foxpro is hardly "open"
> It was bought by M$ presumably to reduce competition - it seems to be
> their "middle" tier DB platform/language, looking at their website
> MSS "Classic" uses it (what we have in the practice)
>
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
