Bulldog ODBC for filePro

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 12:33:49AM -0500, Fairlight wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 11:53:52PM -0500, Jay Ashworth, the prominent pundit,
> witicized:
> > > Jay, don't be...<impolite verbiage omitted>.  Please.
> > 
> > I wasn't *being* one of those.  Really.  :-)
> 
> Okay, I retract.  :)

Thanks.  ;-)

> > 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.  
> 
> Sure.  Of course, that's going to take a substantial amount of time, and
> I'm not sure that it's even compatible with fP's data model--IF one can be
> written as an external.  It certainly wouldn't be trigger-friendly in the
> conventional sense, as an external.

And I know this, of course.  But that was only peripheral to my point.

> > You may have gotten something different out of the website, but I've
> 
> Well, it helps talking to the developer, as well.

I'm sure it does.

> > 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.
> 
> Why, WHY do so many assume, the second you supply interoperability in one
> direction, that the product is being abandoned?  I know someone that's
> running a web site using OneGate, MySQL with a good dose of PHP and
> Java--and it's all driven from filePro -exporting- data out to MySQL.  But
> filePro is at the core of it, even if the web site itself is using the
> MySQL very heavily with the data that's been -exported- from filePro.

Well, in this case, because there seem to be so very many people who
*want* to engage in an exodus.  Or, more accurately, their Pointy
Haired Bosses.

But export is the key word.  It remains unutterably annoying to get a
live link in both directions.  And, IMHO, until fpTech fixes that --
which they so easily could merely by grabbing the PHP module and
teaching it how to lock and write indexes -- they will remain in danger
of exodus.  This is nothing new; how many times have we had this
conversation on this list?

This year?  :-)

> They didn't replace it.  They didn't drop fP.  They augmented their
> solution quite heavily to deliver a really -slick- experience.  I've seen a
> first-hand demonstration of such a solution, and I was impressed with how
> seamless it was, and the flow involved in making it all work.  And fP is
> right at the centre.

But, see, your description does not parse, to me, as "filePro is right
in the centre".  Maybe it's just me..

> I will never understand the shortsightedness inherent in saying that if you
> let data flow only in one direction, you may as well drop the product.
> That's patently untrue.

I didn't say that.

What I said was, effectively, "if you don't make the data flow
bidirectional, you vastly increase the odds that the *clients* will
drop the product -- especially when lots of them are already annoyed
about the issue".

> Has it ever crossed your mind that people might need to access the data
> from multiple sources, and Access (like it or not) may be "better" for some
> people?  That's a real need for them, whether you and I agree with it or
> not.  And this product can fill that need.

Ok, now, cause, see; that sounds like an argument *for* my premise,
rather than against... :-)

> > 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.
> 
> You're reading it in black and white absolute (and very narrow) terms.  If
> the data goes one way, you only see it as a migration.  You apparently
> overlook the whole prospect of augmentation.

The issue here isn't solely the code, and what it can absolutely do,
clearly.

> > 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?
> 
> Like it's useful for what needs it can fulfill--which are more varied than
> you're considering.

They are?

> > And my only investment is 15 years worth of code...
> 
> And nobody's holding a gun to your head forcing you to give up that
> investment.  

I didn't say anyone was.  But see, there's this thing called
management.  

> > 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.
> 
> Let's see...  You go out and program something like this, you have no
> concrete (even if you have solid speculation) idea how the marketplace will
> take to it,

Well, that interpretation has to be a *little* disingenuous, Mark;
considering the discussions on this very list the last 2 years...

>                 and you think it's a good idea to announce future versions
> without knowing what the actual reaction to initial release is?

"Announce future versions" is a bit different from "if there's
commercial interest in this, my goal is to extend it into a full,
bi-directional ODBC server-side gateway".

>                                                                    How much
> time, exactly, is one supposed to sink into something that may or may
> not fly?  This community is a remarkably hard sell for anything--even if
> there's a need for it.  Half the time, developers need things they don't
> even know they need.  When they're exposed to something, 95% of the time
> they don't recognise it for what it can do for them even when they're given
> the specs.  More than 75% of the time, a visual demonstration appears to be
> necessary to drive home even the fact that something is what they've been
> looking for, nevermind the cases where they didn't know they could benefit
> from it.

Ok, fine.  Do you want me to go back and grep my list archive for "Oh,
please, won't someone do server side ODBC for me??"  ;-)

> So if someone sank a few hundred hours into a project (I have no idea
> what's all involved...it can't be trivial though), I think they should
> probably have the benefit of reaction to v1.0 before committing to anything
> else.

And my point is, pretty precisely, that without clear positioning of
what the project's goal is, visibly, in this environment it's
politically pretty dangerous to announce only what he announced, with
no context.

But then, you know, maybe it's just me.

So many things are just me.

> > 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?
> 
> I base it on a far broader interpretation of its potential uses.
> Interoperability--even in only one direction--does NOT necessarily mean
> migration.  And I would think you'd know (and recognise) that fact.
> Apparently I was mistaken in that assumption.

Perhaps I have a different perception of the mindsets of the management
at the companies who make up it's potential client base than you do.
Clearly, any such assumptions I make are solely that: assumptions.  But
I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, Mark; I've been working in
that kind of environment for 20 years.  I have two bosses right now:
one's a filePro partisan and has been for most of those 20 years as
well.  The other one codes in Access.

I know whom I'm *telling* about this, and whom I'm not, and why.

> Even -if- your assumptions are/were right, you could have simply -asked-
> him if he's planning on expanding it, or what his development plans are.
> But nope, you just aim a .50 cal Gatling at his tail rudder and pull the
> trigger with a few inane comments that won't help you (or anyone else)
> learn a thing.  The only time you came close to "asking" anything was in
> your reply to my response to your terse dousing with cold water--the
> originals of which served no purpose except to see yourself type, AFAICT.

I'll cop to everything except "inane".  ;-)

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