On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Ann W. Harrison wrote:

> At 11:38 AM 12/2/2000 +1100, Helen Borrie wrote:
> >I wrote:
> > >In the long run, the right thing to do with UDF's is to
> > >replace them (85% confidence).
> >
> >Oh? why? replace with what?
>
> Because they're horribly insecure. Yes, there's no doubt
> that we'd have to retain the mechanism for upward compatibility.
> The replacement is ill-defined, but I think it smells like coffee.
>

So you want to replace my programming my udf in whatever language I
want to with that odd language that is bright or dim as the sun depending
on what side of the earth you are on at the time?

I think leave the udf alone and add additional support for a seperate
function mechanism (renaming the current udf function something like
udf_function would probably be acceptable in a new dialect).


Randal

> Regards,
>
> Ann
> www.ibphoenix.com
> We have answers.
> I have questions.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> IB-Architect-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>
>
>