On 4/27/10 11:19 AM, Stephen Russell wrote: > DBFs have no security as my first problem with them. They are > independent files that work together. Before the dbc there was no > overall control of the mess. The dbc was just meta data of the mess > and if hosed it all was hosed. Last complaint was backup and > restoration of data as well as a log of changes since last backup. > All the reasons why I didn't look back to dbfs when I got working with > better technology.
You know what the main problem with DBF's are? They are too tightly-bound with the features of the programming language. Using something else - anything else - requires some work to cross the interface. This work turns out to make your code much more portable, secure, reliable, and stable. Paul _______________________________________________ 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 Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/4bd72fb9.8050...@ulmcnett.com ** 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.
