> I've found this message form Jason Wharton talking about
> the plans for the 4.0 version of IBO:
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/IBObjects/message/689
> on Wed Dec 6, 2000 2:32 am
>
> Jason Wharton wrote:
>
> >>If you want an in-memory table the easiest way to
> >>implement it would be to do something like this:
> >>Use a TIB_Query and specify a special code in
> >>the SQL property to signify that an in-memory
> >>table was desired. Then, what it would do is
> >>allow you to insert your records, etc.
> >>With a little bit of work I think I could pull it off.
>
> Is this available in the current version??? could we get a
> in-memory table with the 4.7.17 version of IBO???

Using cached updates this is possible with limited capabilities.

> >>I already have the capability built into IBO to fake a prepared
> statement
> >without having to actually prepare it.
> >How does this sound?
>
> Sounds Great!!! how can a fake the prepare in the current version???
> That will save me a lot of time... and is something i was looking for
> since a lot of time

I have not completed this due to the difficulty of integrating it in with
all the other features of IBO that are server-centric in nature.

I came to the conclusion that if I try to do too much to be all things to
everything that IBO would become too unmanagable. I have therefore decided
to curtail some of my ambitions in order to stay more true to my foundation
of providing client-server tools and to leave purely in-memory solutions to
those who are specializing in such.

> >>I have also been thinking of doing a cached table
> >>where my dataset is able to
> >>load and unload a dataset to a local file.
>
> This would be great too!!!...how can a save the result set to a local
> file???

Sorry, this was never completed.

> >>I also want to build in client-side
> >sorting of data.
>
> Magnificent!!... one thing that i like a lot of FIBPlus is the local-
> sorting... how was this sorting made in IBO??? how can i sort a query
> without have to re-fetch the query???

Again, I have not completed this either. There never was an effective way
to duplicate the same sorting options on the client as the server provides.
I have been asking for some time to have uniformity in the API so that
sorting can be matched on the client as it is on the server. However, this
requires extensive enhancements to the database protocols. Due to this
lacking, I have ceased to go after this objective.

> Thanx in advance... this message sounds great, and from almost seven
> years ago, so much of this work must be done... i think

That is a logical assumption to make... but... Frankly, I'm shocked that
seven years has gone by since I made these statements. These are still
worthwhile objectives and I would be interested in knowing for those here if
they feel I have let them down or if they appreciate that I have instead
emphasized keeping the client-server aspect solid and stable.

Jason Wharton