>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> George, the best commercial integration option available >> for MV right now is >> the Pick Data Provider .NET from Raining Data. > >But doesn't .NET take up like a gazillion bytes of space? >And doesn't "integration" require an object? >As in... integration with .. what? >Will
I don't know why I need to clarify that statement, the other guys got it fine. An "integration option for MV" sort of implies "between MV and anything else that uses .NET". The word "for" is just as good a preposition as "with". I also said: "you don't need any data provider for .NET integration with MV". This implies that .NET itself _is_ the object. Since the whole purpose of .NET is to serve as a common ground for development, if you have integrated with .NET then you have accomplished a goal. This further implies that you can now integrate with anything else that is also .NET-compatible. Yes, "connectivity", "interaction", and real "integration" do have different connotations and I try to be more careful about my choice of words. You can connect to anything but unless you have a good API around your connectivity you aren't really integrating. PDP.NET is an API like UO but it is much more, and it does take advantage of .NET where UO does not and UO.NET may not - we'll see. HTH, Tony -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
