I do think that every method, technique must remain a mean, not a goal.
+1 :)
-Bee-
has Bee.ography at:
http://beeography.wordpress.com
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pasc
Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote:
I'm evaluating the effect of passing function parameters by value or
by reference.
Like stated in the documentation, passing as reference (const) or by
value types with size equal to pointer size like Integer has no
difference in the code output (they are pa
On Thu, April 10, 2008 01:11, Stephano wrote:
.
.
> 4- Windows SerOpen function (based on CreateFile) returns an
> INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE if the device could not be found. How to unify for
> both Linux & Windows? Is it safe to return instead -1 (as in the Linux
> case)?
.
.
If I read the Windows
On Wed, April 9, 2008 23:55, Ricardo Viégas wrote:
Hi Ricardo,
> I have installed FPC 2.2.0 [2007/09/09] a few days ago on my
> WinXP-Pro-SP2, and I'm just taking a Web Tutorial on the language.
> when I come to "User defined variable types", I decided to make the
> following test:
>
> Program
- Original Message -
From: "MPDJ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FPC-Pascal users discussions"
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 10:56 PM
Subject: [fpc-pascal] "Building-Block" Design - or putting it all together
;-)
I've been following this list for sometime, but I'm not a professional
cod
I am planning to improve, if possible, the serial units for both Linux
and Windows, but have a few questions before I proceed any further:
1- I guess the unit rtl\win\wininc\struct.inc has 2 bugs:
a- bm_DCB_fRtsControl = $3000. It should be $2000.
b- bm_DCB_fDtrControl = $30. It
Hi there!
I have installed FPC 2.2.0 [2007/09/09] a few days ago on my WinXP-Pro-SP2, and
I'm just taking a Web Tutorial on the language.
when I come to "User defined variable types", I decided to make the following
test:
Program Test (Output);
Type Vars = (var0, var1);
Var x : Vars;
Begin
x
>On 09/04/2008, Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My point of view is that a database is for storage, not for logic...
From: "Graeme Geldenhuys Wednesday, April 09, 2008 3:35 PM
A very logical assumption. ;-) And one I fully agree with. Use the
correct tool for the job, hence t
Hi,
2008/4/9, Graeme Geldenhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 09/04/2008, Bee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I used to think that way too. But, based on my personal experience, in
> > certain conditions and requirements, implementing logic in database is
> > inevitable. That's why many databa
On 09/04/2008, Bee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I used to think that way too. But, based on my personal experience, in
> certain conditions and requirements, implementing logic in database is
> inevitable. That's why many databases support server side logic though it's
> implemented in various w
On 09/04/2008, Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My point of view is that a database is for storage, not for logic...
A very logical assumption. ;-) And one I fully agree with. Use the
correct tool for the job, hence the reason we don't use stored
procedures either.
Regards,
-
My point of view is that a database is for storage, not for logic...
I used to think that way too. But, based on my personal experience, in
certain conditions and requirements, implementing logic in database is
inevitable. That's why many databases support server side logic though
it's implem
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Matt Emson wrote:
> Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> >
> >
> > > IIRC Mass insertion could bring down the db (slow to an effective DOS to
> > > other users) unless you commit the transaction every 1 items or so.
> > >
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Marco van de Voort wrote:
IIRC Mass insertion could bring down the db (slow to an effective DOS to
other users) unless you commit the transaction every 1 items or so.
Not in my experience: over 600.000 records inserted in 1 transactio
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Matt Emson wrote:
> >
> > The only negative thing I can say about Firebird is that it can produce
> > a corrupt backup file.
>
> IIRC Mass insertion could bring down the db (slow to an effective DOS to
> other users) unless
2008/4/9, Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I do it like that too, because the security model of any RDBM is ridiculous,
> firebird is no exception.
>
> Security must be specified at a functional level, never at the table level.
Absolutely. And security model at the RDBM level prevents
Op woensdag 09-04-2008 om 09:02 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Graeme
Geldenhuys:
> Hi,
>
> Anybody know of a Firebird book I can purchase? Language needs to be in
> English.
>
> I'm looking for something that covers the SQL syntax, DB tuning and
> importantly, security.
>
> The latter is one ma
I've been following this list for sometime, but I'm not a professional
coder like most of you guys here so forgive me if this is obvious or
long-winded..
I've been writing small apps for many years, but am now working on by
far my largest yet and I'm having trouble working out the best way to
Damien Gerard wrote:
However needs are not the same so I wanted to know when it would be a
good choice to use Firebird if someone asks me.
Considering we are still using MS Access (1) which currently handles
20-40 connections - any upgrade to a 'real' database server is a big
plus for us deve
Marco van de Voort wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Matt Emson wrote:
The only negative thing I can say about Firebird is that it can produce
a corrupt backup file.
IIRC Mass insertion could bring down the db (slow to an effective DOS to
other users) unless you commit the transaction every 1000
Take a look to a new Firebird 2.1 next month and probably you will change
your idea about it...
UDF: FreeAdHocUDF, a lot of internal SQL function...
and if you wanna a good book www.ibphoenix.com Helen Borrie book... a MUST!
Codebue Fabio
.-.
_ \ __| _||
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Strange that you say this. We have firebird databases in production at
more than a thousand sites, ranging from simple desktop installations to
sites with more than 500 simultaneous users. Firebird didn't fail on
us once.
Interbase 7.1 and 7.5 were very bad. Interbas
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Matt Emson wrote:
>
> The only negative thing I can say about Firebird is that it can produce
> a corrupt backup file.
IIRC Mass insertion could bring down the db (slow to an effective DOS to
other users) unless you commit the transaction every 1 items or so.
___
> > You should rewrite the whole unit in a cross-platform manner.
>
> Is it possible?
There is no general rule. Sometimes you'd have to rewrite significant parts,
sometimes it is substituting a few calls.
First try to define what abstract functionality you exactly use, instead of
what you use on
Bee wrote:
You should rewrite the whole unit in a cross-platform manner.
Is it possible? I read somewhere that the behavior API of Windows is
Yes it's possible, but nobody said it would be easy. :-) I've done this
a few times before. IBM's website had some good documentation on porting
Wi
Matt Emson wrote:
Yes. I've seen that in a number of IB/FB apps. It is fairly common. But,
Excellent!
also common to create a non SYSDBA user too for that purpose. Be careful
Yes, we do not use the SYSDBA account in our applications. Each DB has
it's own 'owner' account.
Regards,
-
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
I do it like that too, because the security model of any RDBM is ridiculous,
firebird is no exception.
Security must be specified at a functional level, never at the table level.
I'm glad we are not the only ones that think like that. :-)
I tried once at the tab
Matt Emson wrote:
The bigger issue with Firebird was that it was so unstable (but then, so
is Interbase) and required a lot of fiddling to stop it misbehaving
We have not detected any stability issues with Firebird in the last
three years that we used it. It's a simply deploy and forget RDM
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
... At the moment we simply hard-code a firebird
username and password in the application to create the connection,
then access our own 'users' table to manage access to our application.
Is that how everybody else does it with Firebird?
Yes. I've seen that in a number o
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Matt Emson wrote:
> Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
>
> Any documentation for Interbase 5.5 or 6.0 should be fairly helpful.
>
> TBH, the way Firebird did security last time I looked, was pretty similar to
> the way SQL Server does it if you don't use integrated security. Adding u
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Any documentation for Interbase 5.5 or 6.0 should be fairly helpful.
TBH, the way Firebird did security last time I looked, was pretty
similar to the way SQL Server does it if you don't use integrated
security. Adding users was hell, but adding grants etc was pretty si
Le Apr 9, 2008 à 10:47 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys a écrit :
On 09/04/2008, Damien Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does their documentation not suitable to you ?
From MSSQL To Firefird
http://www.firebirdsql.org/manual/migration-mssql.html
I did find that, but it doesn't cover security access f
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> On 09/04/2008, Damien Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Does their documentation not suitable to you ?
> >
> > From MSSQL To Firefird
> > http://www.firebirdsql.org/manual/migration-mssql.html
>
> I did find that, but it doesn't cover se
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Bee wrote:
> > You should rewrite the whole unit in a cross-platform manner.
>
> Is it possible? I read somewhere that the behavior API of Windows is pretty
> much different to API of Linux (and other uni*x platform). Maybe I'll end up
> writing a specific unit for each plat
On 09/04/2008, Damien Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Does their documentation not suitable to you ?
>
> From MSSQL To Firefird
> http://www.firebirdsql.org/manual/migration-mssql.html
I did find that, but it doesn't cover security access from
applications to Firebird.
eg:
* MSSQL has s
You should rewrite the whole unit in a cross-platform manner.
Is it possible? I read somewhere that the behavior API of Windows is
pretty much different to API of Linux (and other uni*x platform). Maybe
I'll end up writing a specific unit for each platform. :(
-Bee-
has Bee.ography at:
http
On 09/04/2008, Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What's wrong with the firebird book by helen borrie ?
>
> http://www.ibphoenix.com/
I only found their book section now... :-)
Most books are in Portuguese, German (including yours )... I'm
trying to find a Table of Contents for t
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Bee wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been trying to convert a Delphi unit to FPC. The problem is the unit
> utilizes lots of low level windows APIs, such as: VirtualProtect, CreateEvent,
> CloseHandle, etc. Due my lack of linux low level API knowledge, I hope someone
> here could s
Hi all,
I've been trying to convert a Delphi unit to FPC. The problem is the
unit utilizes lots of low level windows APIs, such as: VirtualProtect,
CreateEvent, CloseHandle, etc. Due my lack of linux low level API
knowledge, I hope someone here could show me where to find a complete
guide abo
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Anybody know of a Firebird book I can purchase? Language needs to be in
> English.
>
> I'm looking for something that covers the SQL syntax, DB tuning and
> importantly, security.
>
> The latter is one major issue I have with Firebird. I
Le Apr 9, 2008 à 9:02 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys a écrit :
Hi,
Anybody know of a Firebird book I can purchase? Language needs to be
in English.
I'm looking for something that covers the SQL syntax, DB tuning and
importantly, security.
The latter is one major issue I have with Firebird. It's sec
Hi,
Anybody know of a Firebird book I can purchase? Language needs to be in English.
I'm looking for something that covers the SQL syntax, DB tuning and
importantly, security.
The latter is one major issue I have with Firebird. It's security
model is very different to MS SQL Server, and I'm stru
42 matches
Mail list logo
