Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!

Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!

  • Congratulations SkipVought on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Database container & persisten relations

Status
Not open for further replies.

StewartUK

Programmer
Feb 19, 2001
860
0
0
GB
Dear All,

I've recently been looking into the database container. I was interested to note from thread184-27200 (Sep 2000) that a number of programmers (BlindPete, ChrisRChamberlain, FoxDev and csr) are avoiding the container. For those who contributed to that - could you let me know, is this still the case?

My other question was - What are persistent relations actually FOR??? I had thought they were used for SQL selections but, from my short experimentation, this doesn't seem to be the case?

Any advice would be welcome, thanks :)

Stewart
 
Stewart,
The most important reason for using a DBC and using persistant relationships, is for referential integrity. Properly implemented, using RI can simplify code not only in the ADD/DELETE/EDIT mode, but also in the queries when you don't have to worry about coding around "bad" data.

Rick
 
The ability to use transactions is also a powerful feature of DBCs.

Having looked at thread you mentioned it seams that the contributors had tried out DBCs, had problems and then given up!

DBCs are a very powerful, and in my opinion, essential part of VFP. With all the added features I can't see why anyone wouldn't use them!

You must be mad!! :)

Ian
 
Good catch Ian, I use transactioning so transparently (part of the framework), that I sometimes forget that it's in use. But you are right about it being "essential".

Rick
 
I'll admit that my judgement is colored by the fact that, for the last several years, I've been developing in purely client-server environments. While there were a few local tables (mostly for multi-language support), the vast majority of the data resided on database servers. We were forced to use DBCs, because of our (supposed) requirements for updateable remote views. I (and the rest of my team) would have avoided DBCs had we had the opportunity.

However, if I was developing a system that only used native DBFs, I would use DBCs for the RI benefits, assuming there was no substantial performance hit. Robert Bradley
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top