Feasibility Study for Potential fP Software - Part #3 (final
for the day)
Jay R. Ashworth
jra at baylink.com
Sat Sep 16 10:41:59 PDT 2006
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 12:37:40PM -0500, Keith' Weatherhead wrote:
> In thinking as much as I would like to say implement on anything
> from 5.0 onward, I do not think you would want to go back to 4.8 and
> I am thinking that you might want to restrict it 5.6 forward,
> especially if you can get the missing features (@delete and @time
> w/ additional granularity).
>
> Additionally, I would think that you are going to want to require at
> least one if not two dedicated indexes that could be hidden for the
> transaction system. Now that there are 26 indexes with 5.6 you
> could require say index Y and Z be devoted to the transaction system.
>
> Some people may have already grabbed those and may have to make some
> small changes, but I do not think you want to have all the hassle of
> having "your needed controls" variable by every developers whims.
>
> I think I am going to sit back now and see what others have to say.
What *I* am thinking is that it seems like it would be a helluva lot
easier, not to mentio more productive -- on the assumption that someone
has a paying customer for it -- to just wave money in fpTech's face,
and get ODBC-client wired into the Unix runtime tools.
Then you can leverage Other People's Code to get the ACID right, and
you don't have to wake up at 3am to calls from lawyers.
Efficiency is doing the job right.
Effectiveness is doing the right job.
I know this isn't the category of answer you were looking for, Mark,
but you knew I was going to give it to you anyway, right? ;-)
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
"That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later,
they stop having sex with you." -- Jennifer Crusie; _Fast_Women_
More information about the Filepro-list
mailing list