![]() |
sponsored links |
|
|
sponsored links
|
|
1
6th August 10:20
External User
Posts: 1
|
In article <zGqYa.11809$os2.174837@news2.e.nsc.no>, "Bjørge Sæther"
<bjorge@hahaha_itte.no> writes: _Any_ data file should have a version number (or major and minor version numbers) embedded in the first bytes of the data file. Then if you need an update you can read as the old version, and write as the new. That, of course, is if that sort of operation makes sense. For some changes you cannot even do that. Alan Lloyd alanglloyd@aol.com |
|
|
|
2
6th August 10:21
External User
Posts: 1
|
"AlanGLLoyd" <alanglloyd@aol.com> skrev i melding
news:20030811032506.23406.00001365@mb-m27.aol.com... ? Agreed. When using record type files, this means you'll ahve to declare a new record type for each change. And - write a conversion routine that takes data from the old to the new type. At that point, I believe the "easiness" of typed records has gone down the drain, and putting the effort into writing a dynamic storage mechanism would be better. changes you No, then one may need a migration application or whatever to deal with it. But that's the same with all storage formats. -- Regards, Bjørge Sæther bjorge@haha_itte.no ------------------------------------- I'll not spend any money on American Software products until armed forces are out of Iraq. |
|
|
|
4
14th August 13:40
External User
Posts: 1
|
"Bruce Roberts" <ber@bounceitattcanada.xnet> skrev i melding
news:yGPZa.61$0I.2941@news20.bellglobal.com... I meant 'dynamic' as opposed to 'static' Record Type Files. To me, storing data in a database counts for 'dynamic'. It's not the best term, though... -- Regards, Bjørge Sæther bjorge@haha_itte.no ------------------------------------- I'll not spend any money on American Software products until armed forces are out of Iraq. |
|