Subject RE: [IB-Architect] UDF and null
Author Leyne, Sean

While I share some of your cynicism and concerns about the current UDF
functionality, there does come a point where that developers must take
responsibility for their work and for their systems/installations.

I think you would agree that:

Given that IB is now open-source, what would prevent someone from
putting a virus into the source and compiling it? The answer is:
Nothing at all

Should the engine be extended to support a greater number of built-in
functions/statements (any thus minimize the need for 95% of UDFs)? Yes

Should the support for the current UDFs implementation continue? Yes

Should developers be given fair warning about the dangers of UDFs? Yes


-----Original Message-----
From: Ann W. Harrison [mailto:harrison@...]
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: [IB-Architect] UDF and null

At 11:39 AM 12/2/2000 +0100, Toni Martir wrote:

>... and the defined
>functions are well programmed and stable there is no security hole.

well-programmed and stable... I wish I had your confidence.


We have answers.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: