> I noticed on this newsgroup, that most people prefer to use
> the Native IBO components over the TDataSet versions and was
> wondering why ? I use TIB_DSQL, TIB_Cursor and TIB_Script
> pretty regularly, but for binding data aware components I
> typically use TIBOQuery. My primary reason for this, is to
> simplify the conversion from the BDE, while still being able
> to use the existing data aware components I have developed
> over the years.

When the app does not need data-aware controls, I use TIB_*.

When the app has data-aware controls and was ported from the BDE, I use
TIBO* .

I had one case in which TIB_ gave significantly better results than TIBO*,
but apparently this was a _very_ unusual set of circumstances.

Moral: Use whichever set you are most comfortable with.

Art Metz
AMetz@...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Landowski [mailto:chrisl@...]
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 2:46 PM
> To: ibobjects@egroups.com
> Subject: [IBO] TDataSet vs. Native
>
>
> I noticed on this newsgroup, that most people prefer to use
> the Native IBO components over the TDataSet versions and was
> wondering why ? I use TIB_DSQL, TIB_Cursor and TIB_Script
> pretty regularly, but for binding data aware components I
> typically use TIBOQuery. My primary reason for this, is to
> simplify the conversion from the BDE, while still being able
> to use the existing data aware components I have developed
> over the years.
>
> When I first purchased IBO, I figured the native components
> were simply a carry over from the days prior to Borland
> unhooking TDataSet from the BDE. Apparently, this is not the case.
>
> I just read a post where someone was going to convert 150
> forms over to all native components. This seems like a
> daunting task and was wondering if all this effort is really
> worth while, since the app I am converting has somewhere
> around 300 forms ? Am I missing something by not using
> TIB_Query ? Is performance noticeably better ?
>
> Chris Landowski
> Dynamic Software Solutions
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>