letodb-developers

[Letodb-developers] 2008-03-26 21:20 UTC+0200 Pavel Tsarenko (tpe2/at/mail.ru)

[Pavel T. <tp...@ma...>]

2008-03-26 21:20 UTC+0200 Pavel Tsarenko (tpe2/at/mail.ru)
  * include/funcleto.h
  * source/server/letofunc.c
  * source/client/leto1.c
    + added support for additional field types:
      HB_FT_INTEGER
      HB_FT_DOUBLE
      HB_FT_FLOAT
      HB_FT_DAYTIME
      HB_FT_MODTIME
    + added hb_strncpyLower function for xHarbour
  * source/server/server.prg
    + added requests for codepages
    * small change in hs_createindex

With best regards, Pavel Tsarenko

Re: [Letodb-developers] 2008-03-26 21:20 UTC+0200 Pavel Tsarenko (tpe2/at/mail.ru)

[Miguel A. M. <mig...@ma...>]

at xharbour

	HB_FT_DAYTIME is named HB_FT_TIMESTAMP
	HB_FT_MODTIME exists yet
	HB_FT_TIME exists yet (but incompatible with DBF at harbour)
	HB_FT_ROWVER exists yet
	HB_FT_AUTOINC exists yet
	HB_FT_ANY exists yet (but incompatible with DBF at harbour)

this 2 FT only exist at RDD with the purpose to read inexistent DBF ar fields of ADT created with ADSADT
but not are DBFCDX standard compatible DBF.

instead of

	HB_FT_TIMESTAMP and HB_FT_DATETIME

of xharbour are VFP complatible

	HB_FT_ANY

of ADSADT breaks compatibility with DBF because V meanings "VarLenght" ar DBF and "Any" at ADT

	HB_FT_DAYTIME is named HB_FT_TIMESTAMP
	HB_FT_MODTIME exists yet
	HB_FT_TIME exists yet
	HB_FT_ROWVER exists yet
	HB_FT_AUTOINC exists yet
	HB_FT_ANY exists yet

This types were borrowed from ADT format, but are not DBF format

instead of

	HB_FT_DATETIME
	HB_FT_TIMESTAMP
	HB_FT_CURRENCY
	HB_FT_VARLENGTH
	HB_FT_INTEGER
	HB_FT_DOUBLE
	HB_FT_FLOAT
	HB_FT_OLE
	HB_FT_PICTURE
	HB_FT_STRING	(binary and normal)
	HB_FT_MEMO	(binary and normal)

I think that the implementation of xharbour respect all formats

At xharbour autoincremental (flag and FT) works properly, but not at harbour.

Best regards,
Miguel Angel Marchuet

Pavel Tsarenko escribió:
> 2008-03-26 21:20 UTC+0200 Pavel Tsarenko (tpe2/at/mail.ru)
>   * include/funcleto.h
>   * source/server/letofunc.c
>   * source/client/leto1.c
>     + added support for additional field types:
>       HB_FT_INTEGER
>       HB_FT_DOUBLE
>       HB_FT_FLOAT
>       HB_FT_DAYTIME
>       HB_FT_MODTIME
>     + added hb_strncpyLower function for xHarbour
>   * source/server/server.prg
>     + added requests for codepages
>     * small change in hs_createindex
> 
> With best regards, Pavel Tsarenko
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
> It's the best place to buy or sell services for
> just about anything Open Source.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace
> _______________________________________________
> Letodb-developers mailing list
> Let...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/letodb-developers
> 

Re: [Letodb-developers] 2008-03-26 21:20 UTC+0200 Pavel Tsarenko (tpe2/at/mail.ru)

[Pavel T. <tp...@ma...>]

Hello, Miguel!

 MAM> at xharbour

 MAM> HB_FT_DAYTIME is named HB_FT_TIMESTAMP
 MAM> HB_FT_MODTIME exists yet
 MAM> HB_FT_TIME exists yet (but incompatible with DBF at harbour)
 MAM> HB_FT_ROWVER exists yet
 MAM> HB_FT_AUTOINC exists yet
 MAM> HB_FT_ANY exists yet (but incompatible with DBF at harbour)

 MAM> this 2 FT only exist at RDD with the purpose to read inexistent DBF
 MAM> ar fields of ADT created with ADSADT but not are DBFCDX standard
 MAM> compatible DBF.

 MAM> instead of

 MAM> HB_FT_TIMESTAMP and HB_FT_DATETIME

 MAM> of xharbour are VFP complatible

 MAM> HB_FT_ANY

 MAM> of ADSADT breaks compatibility with DBF because V meanings
 MAM> "VarLenght" ar DBF and "Any" at ADT

 MAM> HB_FT_DAYTIME is named HB_FT_TIMESTAMP
 MAM> HB_FT_MODTIME exists yet
 MAM> HB_FT_TIME exists yet
 MAM> HB_FT_ROWVER exists yet
 MAM> HB_FT_AUTOINC exists yet
 MAM> HB_FT_ANY exists yet

 MAM> This types were borrowed from ADT format, but are not DBF format

 MAM> instead of

 MAM> HB_FT_DATETIME
 MAM> HB_FT_TIMESTAMP
 MAM> HB_FT_CURRENCY
 MAM> HB_FT_VARLENGTH
 MAM> HB_FT_INTEGER
 MAM> HB_FT_DOUBLE
 MAM> HB_FT_FLOAT
 MAM> HB_FT_OLE
 MAM> HB_FT_PICTURE
 MAM> HB_FT_STRING (binary and normal)
 MAM> HB_FT_MEMO (binary and normal)

 MAM> I think that the implementation of xharbour respect all formats

 MAM> At xharbour autoincremental (flag and FT) works properly, but not
 MAM> at harbour.

IMHO this FT identifiers is used only under letodb.
HB_FT_DATETIME and HB_FT_TIMESTAMP is the synonym of HB_FT_DAYTIME and
HB_FT_MODTIME

With best regards, Pavel Tsarenko.

Re: [Letodb-developers] 2008-03-26 21:20 UTC+0200 Pavel Tsarenko (tpe2/at/mail.ru)

[Miguel A. M. <mig...@ma...>]

HB_FT_TIMESTAMP and HB_FT_DAYTIME are the same type "@"

but

HB_FT_MODTIME is type "="  used in files with extension ADT (ADS)

and

HB_DATETIME is type "T" used in files with extension DBF (VFP)

"=" was incorrectly introduced, this type was borrowed from ADT files to DBF files. but is not supported
make an incompatible DBF for the rest of compilers or applications.

Sometimes i explain very bad :(

Best regards,
Miguel Angel Marchuet



>