shevett@labii.UUCP (Dave Shevett) (10/15/89)
monty@delphi.uchicago.edu (Monty Mullig) writes: >In article <5809@decvax.dec.com> f0057@uafhp.uucp (James Everett Ward) writes: >> >>We are looking into projects that recquire multiuser ability and multitasking >>would just be a boon. I desire to move into the Unix world. What would be >>the easiest transition for a team of Clipper programmers (dBASE III+) ... >i have to suggest starting from scratch. the MS-DOS and unix worlds >are so different and the db packages available on unix so richly >featured that i think trying to preserve the clipper/dos programming >environment would severely limit you in the long run, or at least >would deny you the best of the unix world and its software. just my >opinion, though. >--monty I think you should seriously look at Foxbase under [X|U]nix. If you're already familiar with the dBase III structure, Foxbase will serve you fine, and you can port your application to the Unix system with NO mods (save possibly reindexing your files). I developed a big Foxbase application under DOS, including file and record locking, and it ported to Unix and ran ON THE FIRST TRY. Foxbase supports file/record locking, so multi-user access to dbf's are no problem. Second, you can call Unix functions from with a Foxbase program as a background or foreground task (using shell escapes). I added a function to my Unix program to allow a person to check mail from inside the program. All I did was: if mcommand = 'M' !mailx endif If I wanted to run another task in the background that didn't need interactive I/O, you could push it into the background and return to the application via a !function & command. (gee, I wonder how that would work? Isn't & a comment in Foxbase? Has anyone done this?) I'll admit I'm biased, but I haven't found a major need to dish out bucks x 10^XXX for a large dbms when Foxbase has everything I need... /--------------------+ 'The shortest distance +------------------\ | Dave Shevett | between two puns is a | Labyrinth II BBS | | shevett@labii.UUCP | straight line...' | W. Trenton, NJ | \--------------------+ - Doc Webster +------------------/
zwilling@barney.cs.wisc.edu (Mike Zwilling) (10/17/89)
In article <226@labii.UUCP> shevett@labii.UUCP (Dave Shevett) writes: >monty@delphi.uchicago.edu (Monty Mullig) writes: > >>i have to suggest starting from scratch. the MS-DOS and unix worlds >>are so different and the db packages available on unix so richly >>featured that i think trying to preserve the clipper/dos programming >>environment would severely limit you in the long run, or at least >>would deny you the best of the unix world and its software. just my >>opinion, though. >>--monty > >I think you should seriously look at Foxbase under [X|U]nix. If you're This comment may show my ignorance of current DOS based DBMS's, but I'll make it anyway. It seems that in all this discussion, transaction and recovery facilities are never mentioned. When I used DOS systems such as D:base III and R:Base a couple years ago, they had no such facilities. But, it seems that the UNIX systems such as Ingres and Oracle do. Don't users want transactions and recovery facilities in DOS based systems? Are they available in current systems? -- Mike Zwilling University of Wisconsin -- Madison Computer Sciences Dept. 1210 W. Dayton St. Madison, WI 53706