Well I can see you two need seperating. But as long as we are mentioning
tools, sometimes WISQL is just what I want to use as it is to the point as
im simplistic, sometimes I need more features so I use IB_WISQL. Now play
nice :).

Randal

On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Helen Borrie wrote:

> At 12:28 PM 13-06-00 -0400, you wrote:
> >Helen (Oh, moderator of this list)
> >
> >I must disagree with you, a discussion of the merits/demerits of WISQL
> >vs. IB_WISQL is not a subject for the architecture list.
> >
> >It is much better suited for the Priorities or perhaps the Marketing
> >list, anywhere but here.
> >
> >
> >Sean
>
> Disagree back at you, Sean. This is the forum where the architecture of
> interface tools should be discussed. The list is about the architecture of
> the software. On your ruling, I would have to exclude discussion of
> drivers (including the ODBC one) and replicators. Sorry to disappoint your
> arcane spirit, but I want to encourage discussion of architectures here.
>
> Helen
> http://www.interbase2000.org
> ___________________________________________________
> "Ask not what your free, open-source database can do for you,
> but what you can do for your free, open-source database."
> (J.F.K.)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> IT Professionals: Match your unique skills with the best IT projects at
> http://click.egroups.com/1/3381/4/_/830676/_/960914653/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> IB-Architect-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>
>
>