fileProODBC (was Re: OT: Filemaker 8)

[Fairlight]

Yo, homey, in case you don' be listenin', Tyler Style done said:
> Easily answered, grasshopper.  Because a web browser, unlike a database 
> backend, is a client.  And Apache, unlike an end user application, is a 
> server.  Can filePro be said to be a database server?  Yup, I think most 
> people would say so, given that most people use it for data storage and 
> manipulation.  After all, there's even a limited SQL interface that can 
> be tacked on to query it, which kinda says 'database' to me (although 
> again it's a read only thing, alas).

You can make that distinction easily, and yet:

"I can't really say what the project scope would be like, I must admit.
However, write access is already there in fpCGI, which makes me wonder
about why it isn't in fpODBC.  But I'm happy to take your word for it that
it's a..."

You're comparing CGI to ODBC.  I made that mistake out of ignorance of ODBC
once before actually having to use ODBC--and was set straight myself.  So
don't worry about looking silly--just learn the difference.

Those are -entirely- different creatures.  You get write access via fPcgi
because you run *clerk or *report from it, not because it has direct
write access itself.  To get that, they'd have had to break out the I/O
functions, including index handling, into this mysterious fPAPI that never
actually materialised.  No, fPcgi just hands data to *clerk or *report via
a (poorly formatted) ASCII text file, and *clerk or *report does the actual
work of writing to the tables and indexes.  There's no -inherent- direct
write access to any tables with the fPcgi product.

I've worked with ODBC just enough while writing FairPay to learn to loathe
the ODBC cursor (especially on MSSQL Server) to the point where I'd rather
pull my eyelashes out with the Jaws of Life than work with it much more.

CGI, on the other hand, is a comparative cakewalk.  It's not without its
considerations (especially in requiring you know what you're doing with
security unless you like losing control of your system), but it's a huge
difference.  The CGI spec is rather short and sweet.  The ODBC spec is
rumoured (I thought Laura said it at one point--or Ken did) to be about
1400 pages long.

A -trifling- difference, wouldn't you say?  :)

> So, not really unreasonable for a developer to expect ODBC from 
> something that bills itself as a database server (plus a rapid 

I'd probably be the first to call them on it, but to my knowledge they've
never -ever- claimed to be a database -server-.  Database, yes.  Database
server, no...not that specific verbiage.

> applications development suite and reporting tool).  In fact, isn't that 
> also a fair description of MS Access?  Except, of course, MS Access 
> offers ODBC...

So does fP--it's just client-side only.  You've already got the difference
between web browsers and servers down.  Extrapolate.

> Not that I'd encourage anyone to use that mess for app development, ech.

There's hope for you.  :)

mark->