On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Martin Schreiber wrote:
> 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. Quick question, before I continue with the evaluation: I find no evidence of this last thing in the code ? (in trunk, that is) msbufdataset has fixed buffers for strings, and uses 1 byte per char. Michael. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
