Pre.S. ADSX is not xHarbour related, but this message shows the value of
ADS* in comparison to pure ADS. So, I putt CC xHarbour also.
Hi,
Przemysław Czerpak wrote:
The addition of specific "sub-rdds" of ADSCDX etc. came years later.
I, and I imagine a lot of other people who started using rddads
early on, never had a need to explicitly use those other rdds by name.
Any one who has code like:
proc copy_table( cSrc, cSrcRDD, cDst, cDstRDD )
use (cSrc) via (cSrcRDD)
copy to (cDst) via (cDstRDD)
return
designed to work with different RDDs in Clipper, needs ADS* RDDs to port
his code without introducing unnecessary and incompatible with other RDDs
modifications which are necessary to make working code like:
copy_table( "sales", "ADSCDX", "sales2", "ADSADT" )
...
2 minutes ago my co-worker asked a related RDD name question. Until know
we've used ADSX RDD whitch is inherited from ADS. We are moving from
ADSCDX to ADSADT, but of some transition time we need both ADSADT and
ADSCDX with ADSX functionality. Since ADSX is the only RDD with local
indexing capability AdsSetFileType() does not help any more to specify
database/index type, because we need both.
The only solution I see is to make 4 RDDs instead of one ADSX. That
names do you prefer:
1) ADSXCDX, ADSXADT, ADSXNTX, ADSXVFP
2) ADSCDXX, ADSADTX, ADSNTXX, ADSVFPX
Regards,
Mindaugas
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB)
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
