> Right now I have a couple of ideas to do that, but I have to test all of
> them and choose one.

Could you let the rest of us know what method you finally choose?  I have to
do the same thing converting one of our applications in a few months and
having a solution for this issue up front would help tremendously.

--

---------------------------------------
 Terry Swiers
 Millennium Software, LLC
 http://www.atrex.com
 ---------------------------------------

Terry,

<<Could you let the rest of us know what method you finally choose?  I have to
do the same thing converting one of our applications in a few months and
having a solution for this issue up front would help tremendously.>>

This may take some time since I have some priorities.  But I will post it once I found what I think is the best approach (At least for our application).

>Bill,
>
><< You can still use an inmemory table the same exact way. >>
>
>You would need to use a disk-based table if you want it to be accessible by
>all users.  An in-memory table will only be visible to the current process
>in which it resides.

No global memory tables to the EDB server????

Bill


As soon as you can tell Tim where to locate a global memory table in a fileserver environment I'm sure he'll build it in

In the meantime wait for the enterprise c/s only version.

Roy Lambert

Bill,

<< No global memory tables to the EDB server???? >>

No.  Roy is correct in his response - due to the fact that the EDB Server
can still share tables with other processes, there is really no way to
successfully implement a global in-memory database yet.

--
Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com