This was the scenario I found in vegas.
No project
No APP
No source code system
A disaster waiting to happen.

And worse..
Different versions of the same named PRG in various folders...
No idea which one was the right one..
 


Virgil Bierschwale
http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Rick Schummer
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 1:38 PM
To: profox@leafe.com
Subject: RE: Design question -- APP vs EXE for better memory management

>>I suppose you could use Stephen Settimi's approach in EXCLUDING almost 
>>EVERYTHING basically and
referring to it in code...<<

Yes, this definitely defeats the caching problem, but now you are managing
the release of source code to production instead of APPs. You really only
need one EXE and just deploy the source directly. Otherwise you have to
manage one EXE, multiple APPs, *and* the source code. This by definition
defeats one big benefit Bill Anderson discussed, which is the reduction of
system testing. In fact, taking this approach increases the need both
internal system testing and customer acceptance testing. 

Worse, it also exposes the source code to "unauthorized" changes by anyone
with a copy of VFP. Of course it depends on the circumstances with the
customer, but I think this opens up a serious can of worms for most
deployments outside of an internal IT department and maybe some Web sites.

Interesting discussion for sure.


Rick
White Light Computing, Inc.

www.whitelightcomputing.com
www.rickschummer.com
586.254.2530 - office
586.254.2539 - fax



[excessive quoting removed by server]

_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to