On Tuesday 03 July 2007 13.16, Joost van der Sluis wrote: > On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 12:57 +0200, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > > I'd rather see that the whole is coordinated a bit. I don't think all > > this > > duplication is a good idea; One solid set of components makes much > > more > > sense: the number of developers available for it's maintenance would > > double. > > The end user would also benefit, as we can give 1 solid set of > > components, > > no doubts possible. > > I aggree with Michael on this. Besides, last time I looked at your > 'TBufDataset' (which is a actually a fork, offcourse) it only > implemented blob-fields, on top of the existing TBufDataset. > > The current TBufDataset also supports blob-fields, in a (in my opinion) > better way, now. Are there any other changes/additions? > It is completely rewritten. Buffer organisation is not a linked list, the record pointers are hold in arrays to allow simple record accessing by locally builded indexes and easy recno handling. String fields are stored as widestrings, there are no fixed string field sizes in the record buffer. It has the possibility to work comparable to TClientDataset with a local change log and data file.
Martin _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
