Re: [Harbour] RDD controversy question for all people

I like the idea too. Miguel Angel Marchuet wrote: View the controversy it creates, I propose to upload the following rdds: dbf1.c strict compatibility with C/52 (RT and Types) DBFCDX52.LIB dbf2.c strict compatibility with CL53 (RT, BM and Types)DBFCDX53.LIB dbf3.c strict compatibility with

RE: [Harbour] RDD controversy question for all people

. Subject: Re: [Harbour] RDD controversy question for all people Massimo Belgrano escribió: > Agree It's better to have one RDD containing all feature But this is simply not possible :) because each rdd has incompatible features with each others. or the cost in speed is unacceptable. For

Re: [Harbour] RDD controversy question for all people

Ok I will do it Alex Strickland escribió: Miguel Angel Marchuet wrote: Add a level more to inheritance will allow us better cope with all versions have a maintenance easier, and some have rdds faster and lighter. I know this has come up before, but I never understood the answer (or maybe t

Re: [Harbour] RDD controversy question for all people

Miguel Angel Marchuet wrote: Add a level more to inheritance will allow us better cope with all versions have a maintenance easier, and some have rdds faster and lighter. I know this has come up before, but I never understood the answer (or maybe the problem). Why don't you use inheritance f

Re: [Harbour] RDD controversy question for all people

Massimo Belgrano escribió: Agree It's better to have one RDD containing all feature But this is simply not possible :) because each rdd has incompatible features with each others. or the cost in speed is unacceptable. For example dbase III has 10 field name length dbase IV is 32 and different

Re: [Harbour] RDD controversy question for all people

I agree with you and Mindaugas, of course. But then we can do the next. dbf0.c for common code with the next rdd structure (example): wa - dbf0 - dbf(especific) - (index) actually there are features incompatibles between rdd it can be solved. * for example dBase IV use dbf with 32 field leng

RE: [Harbour] RDD controversy question for all people

Agree It's better to have one RDD containing all feature -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mindaugas Kavaliauskas Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 11:35 AM To: Harbour Project Main Developer List. Subject: Re: [Harbour] RDD contro

Re: [Harbour] RDD controversy question for all people

Hi Miguel, I find this extremely confusing and difficult to maintain and use, and pretty much defeats the purpose of _Replaceable_ Database Driver concept, so I vote a strong no. Brgds, Viktor On 2008.09.22., at 9:21, Miguel Angel Marchuet wrote: View the controversy it creates, I propose to u

Re: [Harbour] RDD controversy question for all people

Hi, View the controversy it creates, I propose to upload the following rdds: dbf1.c strict compatibility with C/52 (RT and Types) DBFCDX52.LIB dbf2.c strict compatibility with CL53 (RT, BM and Types)DBFCDX53.LIB dbf3.c strict compatibility with VFoxPro (RT and Types) DBFCDXVF.LIB dbf4.c st

Re: [Harbour] RDD controversy question for all people

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Miguel Angel Marchuet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know your opinion. you only want strict 52 compatibility > in this case don't worry, you can use the same lib as always. We've got a similar discussion months ago ( see Rushmore and bitmap filters thread ). The

Re: [Harbour] RDD controversy question for all people

Miguel Angel Marchuet wrote: > > > NOW I want opinion of other people, please. > > It interestingly for me Regards, Petr -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/RDD-controversy-question-for-all-people-tp19602998p19604315.html Sent from the Harbour - Dev mailing list archiv

Re: [Harbour] RDD controversy question for all people

I'm talking how revert las changes in the best way I know your opinion. you only want strict 52 compatibility in this case don't worry, you can use the same lib as always. but there are some other body that can prefer more speed and different security levels in a separated and clean rdd. don't

RE: [Harbour] RDD controversy question for all people

---Message d'origine- De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Lorenzo Fiorini Envoyé : lundi 22 septembre 2008 10:16 À : Harbour Project Main Developer List. Objet : Re: [Harbour] RDD controversy question for all people On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Miguel Angel M

Re: [Harbour] RDD controversy question for all people

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Miguel Angel Marchuet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > View the controversy it creates Actually the project leaders are Przemyslaw and Viktor ( in alphabetic order ). We've agreed time ago that nobody else can change the core code without announcing it and waiting fo

RE: [Harbour] RDD controversy question for all people

I like the idea ! Best regards, JF -Message d'origine- De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Miguel Angel Marchuet Envoyé : lundi 22 septembre 2008 9:21 À : Harbour Project Main Developer List. Objet : [Harbour] RDD controversy question for all people View the c