DBFs aren't unstable. In contrary they are one of the most stable storage options we have. Simple structure, easy to read and write, fast access. As long as you use them locally, there's no better engine. And that's why ADS is stil using them: they have a pure local access with their C/S engine. What made them problematic and bad-mouthed are the classic multiuser network problems, with a real file-access and data-transport over cable or WLAN you are always prone to problems. Thus, it would be better to state: For local data manipulation / massage / extraction, VFP and DBFs are stil king; and for MultiUser you better use any kind of C/S.
wOOdy -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: ProFox <[email protected]> Im Auftrag von MB Software Solutions, LLC Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. November 2019 15:17 An: [email protected] Betreff: Re: So, about this VFPA thing... On 11/27/2019 3:47 AM, Alan Bourke wrote: > On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, at 6:51 PM, Tracy Pearson wrote: >> Charlie, >> >> To respond to your wish for larger DBF capacities. > There's also Advantage Database Server (now owned by SAP) which lets you work with DBF\CDX\FPT over 4GB. Ever since I switched to MySQL (and later MariaDB) back in 2004, I've never wanted to go back to DBFs for major app tables. Never. [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: https://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: https://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: https://leafe.com/archives This message: https://leafe.com/archives/byMID/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
