BDE / IDAPI VERSIONS
Peter Rousseau
I have checked my client's system (to set LocalShare to TRUE) and while
searching the registry for the location of CONFIGFILE01 I noticed the
file is named *IDAPI.CFG* on all machines.
On my notebook the same search turns up *IDAPI32.CFG* His machines and
my notebook all run Win2000Pro. I run WPO10 sp (latest one, I forget)he
runs WPO9 sp4. My notebook has IDAPI32.dll v 5.1.1.1, his machines have
5.1.0.4.
Should his machines be using *IDAPI32.CFG*? What would be the benefits
over *IDAPI.CFG*? Thank you.
Peter R
Tony McGuire
: Should his machines be using *IDAPI32.CFG*? What would be the benefits
: over *IDAPI.CFG*? Thank you.
You can use any name you want, as long as the registry knows which name
should be used.
If you 'save as' a loaded .cfg file, the BDE Administrator will even ask you
if you want to use that saved file as the new 'Default' .cfg file.
So, other than for consistency across all systems you support, there isn't
really an advantage to using one name instead of another.
--
--
Paradox Support http://www.thedbcommunity.com/support/
Tony McGuire
_____________
Steven Green
Tony McGuire wrote:
> So, other than for consistency across all systems you support, there isn't
> really an advantage to using one name instead of another.
and I have yet to see a definitive explanation as to *why* some machines have
"32" and some don't.. this behavior has been there for many years..
--
Steven Green - Waldorf Maryland USA
Diamond Software Group
http://www.diamondsg.com/main.htm
Paradox Support & Sales - Corel CTech Paradox
---------------------------------------------------
Diamond Sports Gems
http://www.diamondsg.com/gemsmain.htm
Trading Cards and other Sports Memorabilia
---------------------------------------------------
Tony McGuire
: and I have yet to see a definitive explanation as to *why* some machines
have
I wonder if it isn't due to 'upgrades'.
Older systems that went from 5,7,8 and up.
Not sure, but I think even 7 32bit used idapi rather than idapi32. A guess,
more or less.
Peter Rousseau
Okay, so bottom line is that it is only a *name* and there are no
performance issues. Thanks.
By the way, judgement day has arrived. We have undertaken the project of
setting up a new directory structure (as suggested in the BDE WOES
thread) and now I have a monumental task of going through all the forms
etc., to change the *:WORK:* references. I put it off as long as
possible, but it will be way cool when it's done.
Peter R
Steven Green
Tony McGuire wrote:
> I wonder if it isn't due to 'upgrades'. Older systems that went from 5,7,8 and
> up.
I can't even say yes to that.. I recall being at a client site last year, where
they had a building full of "the same machine" and "Pdox8 clean installs".. at
least, from what I could see, they were all theoretically the same.. and some of
them were idapi, some were idapi32.. just like the couple of messages recently
on the newsgroups, including this thread, with a bunch of "all the same" 2000's
or XP's..
Dennis Santoro
You can save yourself some time and effort on that process by following the
instructions in my Database Basics paper from our Paradox resources page (Link in
my signature). Then you will only have to find the in code references.
Denn Santoro
President
Resource Development Associates
http://www.RDAWorldWide.Com
Offices in the United States and Germany
Providing solutions to health care, business, governments and non-profits since
1982
Peter Rousseau
I got it, thanks Den.
I just realized that I have an alias name that is the same as one of tables. Is that
aproblem?
eg, ":VIP:VIP.db"
Peter R
Dennis Santoro
Not a great idea but it should only be confusing to the next person doing
maintenance....
Steve Urbach
>
>I got it, thanks Den.
>
>I just realized that I have an alias name that is the same as one of tables. Is that
>aproblem?
>eg, ":VIP:VIP.db"
>
>Peter R
>
>
I would avoid that if at all possible.
PdoxDOS got real quirky with a directory containing a object of the
same name. Especially if the directory was not the application
directory.
Steve U