Bulldog ODBC for filePro

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 10:42:33PM -0500, Fairlight wrote:
> In the relative spacial/temporal region of
> Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 10:09:44PM -0500, Jay Ashworth achieved the spontaneous
> generation of the following:
> > On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 10:01:31PM -0500, ryanx at indy.rr.com wrote:
> > > See http://www.bulldogsoftware.com for details.
> > 
> > "the one thing the filePro community has been demanding for ages."
> > 
> > Um, no.
> 
> Jay, don't be...<impolite verbiage omitted>.  Please.

I wasn't *being* one of those.  Really.  :-)

What we've been asking for for ages is an ODBC server (why can't
*anyone* just *call* them clients and servers, so we don't have to
guess?) implementation that will let live clients talk to active
filePro data file sets.  

You may have gotten something different out of the website, but I've
just re-read it, and I don't.  Sorry.  And this here's the net.
Everyone's an adult, right?  I didn't say "Ryan, what a jerk you are",
or anything remotely like a personal attack.  I merely quoted sales
fluff, and disagreed with it.

> fP-Tech took FIVE YEARS (more or less) to deliver fPODBC.  Bulldog ODBC was
> done in a -vastly- shorter time, and I'm pretty confident (knowing Ryan
> pretty well) that if this goes over well, further development would be done
> that would yield more features and flexibility.

You didn't read my other reply, I think.  As near as I can determine,
"this going over well" is defined as "letting a whole bunch of filePro
sites pull their data out and move it over to 'something easier to use'".

Certainly what's posted about it so far gives, rather than corrects,
that opinion.

> Moreover, as I understand it (Ryan can correct me if I'm wrong), this
> doesn't require running filePro to work.

Yup.

> We all have to start with -a- release.  I know my OneGate didn't release at
> v2.4--or even v2.0, for instance.  You release something solid, even if it's
> more limited than you'd like, and if it goes somewhere (or you prefer to
> spend your spare time coding rather than with family, etc.), you add to it
> and improve it.  He -just- released it today, and you trounce him.  Usually
> I'll be one of the first (sometimes only) to defend you, but I really don't
> get you this time.  A little common courtesy is in order, I should think.

It's positioning, Mark.  Convince me that I've misread what he's trying
to enable people to do, and I'll change my outlook.

Fine, you start with release 1.0.  But if your description of 1.0
amounts to "look: here's a tool to let you yank your data out and use
it somewhere more comfortable", then how would you *expect* me to
react?

And my only investment is 15 years worth of code...

And, as I say: I don't see anything that explains how Ryan views his
roadmap for the product.  He may well plan to make it into a full
server-side implementation.  But I can't tell.  Do you really think it
wouldn't have been a good idea to put that in the posting here, even if
he didn't say it on the website?  I mean, c'mon: I know Ryan's been on
this list for a while; I can't imagine he isn't at least a *little*
tapped in to the zeitgesit on this topic or he wouldn't be writing the
damned thing in the first place.

> I, for one, applaud Ryan's initiative, hard work, effort, and I wish him
> great success in his endeavors.  Good luck, Ryan--and as some of us gamers
> are wont to say, "...and skill too!"

Clearly, as I say, you read the product's goal in liff differently
than I do. I'd be obliged if you could point me to what you based that
viewpoint on?

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

      If you can read this... thank a system adminstrator.  Or two.  --me