This thread looks to be a little on the old side and therefore may no longer be relevant. Please see if there is a newer thread on the subject and ensure you're using the most recent build of any software if your question regards a particular product.
This thread has been locked and is no longer accepting new posts, if you have a question regarding this topic please email us at support@mindscape.co.nz
|
Anything on the VistaDB 5 provider guys??? Cheers |
|
|
|
|
Hi Mike, Sorry but we are not currently planning to go ahead with a provider for VistaDB5 as there is very limited demand for this.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Jeremy, we have bought lightspeed because the vistadb provider. Now its not nice for us that lightspeed doesn't use the new vistadb version. Our experience is that the vistadb sql syntax has not changed significantly, that have you any option that we can create our custom provider in base of the old vistadb provider? Thank you Reiner |
|
|
|
|
Hi Reiner, Unfortunately while the syntax has not changed much there is new functionality which we would want to offer support for and changes associated with our designer support for VistaDB that means there is a bit of work for us. We have previously looked at this to see if we could easily integrate with it but it is not a simple integration so for now we have put this on our backlog until there is enough customer demand to justify the time required. Jeremy |
|
|
|
|
Hi Jeremy, thank you for your answer. Think you, if I buy the source license I can change the VistaDBProvider self easily? Because I don't need new functions - I only need to use the new vistadb version Thank you Reiner |
|
|
|
|
Hi Reiner, Yes from a runtime perspective updating the VistaDB reference for the existing VistaDB4 provider assembly is fairly trivial. I cant guarantee that will be all thats required to ensure compatibility as changes in behaviour from VistaDB may cause other problems at runtime and we have not fully explored what those might be with extensive testing. Ultimately the provider just surfaces the underlying ADO.NET objects so on the assumption that it behaves in a completely backwards compatible manner then this should be all thats required.
|
|
|
|
