On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Viktor Szakáts<harbour...@syenar.hu> wrote:
> I see. Overall to me RDDSQL looks like a proper and common wrapper > implementation to our existing and not very much compatible solutions: > HBPGSQL, HBMYSQL, HBFBIRD and HBODBC. And instead of direct > API calls and Harbour classes it makes this functionality accessible > through the existing Harbour db functions as an RDD. Isn't it USRRDD an easier solution? RDDSQL is written in C and only few developers here can master it while if we create a set of USRRDD using the already existing C interfaces, we'll potentially have more developers. Also ARRAYRDD is a good candidate to manage "recordsets" and provide "real time" data editing in browses so we'll have all the components inside the same interface. best regards, Lorenzo _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
