|Subject||Re: [IBO] tib_ vs. tibo|
> Helen, I don't totally agree with the 100% emulation. I tried theThere are a number of things that benefit from a tidy up
> conversion process and ran into some problems. For example, using an
> AsBlob for a stored procedure parameter (although there is a
> workaround). Some master/detail screens didn't work the same way as
> with the bde (for example, details not showing when the master was
> updated and the master was still in the edit state). How about a
> 99.9% emulation ;-).
once the conversion is done. At the end of the day if you
have a stable working program I'd say you were 100%
successful. The 'operational discrepancies' should then be
addresed, and usually come from grey areas in interpreting
what was required. The additional buffering which gives the
much improved performance does need some help appreciating
what else has changed in some instances.
> Our app has been around for over 5 years withWhen I first started with IBO I got in a mess, and went back
> nearly 300 units, so some of our problems now might be from poor
> programming practices (we have an awful lot of tables compared to
> querys). You'll probably be seeing more of me from now on. Thanks
to trying to get BDE to work. I wasted another 6 months
before having one last try with IBO before bowing to the
pressure to scrap Interbase altogether <g>.
The best results are achieved by starting with a clean sheet
of paper and doing what you want in Native IBO. Within a
month I had a stable fast rebuild of the problem
applications and I have not looked back since. That was 2
years ago, and the conversion process from BDE is now much
better, but treat it as a stepping stone not as the answer.
L.S.Caine Electronic Services