I'm thinking of upgrading from DBISAM 4 to EDB, for the replication and
triggers (for a new project), and have some questions.

1. I'm using Delphi 2007 - soon to be 2009, which presumably won't support
DBISAM at all?

2. I'm using RemObjects DataAbstract, but need to have both DBISAM and EDB
on my system whilst I go through the upgrade process of existing apps.

3. Presumably the client server option is similar to DBISAM (which means I
don't need it, since I use DA to handle the server operations)

4. I've noticed you mention CF. Now, replication from a mobile device to a
PC would be a nice thing to use, but does this mean I'd need to purchase
the DAC version as well as the VCL one, just for this (if so, it's not
going to happen)?

Thanks

--
Jeremy Knowles

Jeremy,

<< 1. I'm using Delphi 2007 - soon to be 2009, which presumably won't
support DBISAM at all? >>

No, we'll have Delphi 2009 support for DBISAM, but it will be ANSI-only.

<< 2. I'm using RemObjects DataAbstract, but need to have both DBISAM and
EDB on my system whilst I go through the upgrade process of existing apps.
>>

Not a problem.

<< 3. Presumably the client server option is similar to DBISAM (which means
I don't need it, since I use DA to handle the server operations) >>

Yes, it is similar.

<< 4. I've noticed you mention CF. Now, replication from a mobile device to
a PC would be a nice thing to use, but does this mean I'd need to purchase
the DAC version as well as the VCL one, just for this (if so, it's not going
to happen)? >>

Yes, that would be the case.  We include a 20% discount for cross-upgrades,
however, so the DAC version would cost you $223.20 US.  Considering that
you're getting a native .NET local engine that runs on .NET 2.0 or higher
and CF 2.0 or higher, along with an ODBC driver, all with royalty-free
distribution, we consider it a good bargain.

--
Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com

Tim Young [Elevate Software] wrote:

>Jeremy,
>
><< 1. I'm using Delphi 2007 - soon to be 2009, which presumably won't
>support DBISAM at all? >>
>
>No, we'll have Delphi 2009 support for DBISAM, but it will be ANSI-only.

Ah, that's good. I do notice you are still selling both, so that makes
sense.

><< 3. Presumably the client server option is similar to DBISAM (which
>means I don't need it, since I use DA to handle the server operations) >>
>
>Yes, it is similar.

But having read some more (you could use a page - or a more prominent link
if there is already one- to show what is different between the C/S and
standard versions), if I am wanting to use replication, does that mean I'd
have to use the C/S version? The replication and triggers are the only
things that are making me consider the upgrade.

>
><< 4. I've noticed you mention CF. Now, replication from a mobile device
>to a PC would be a nice thing to use, but does this mean I'd need to
>purchase the DAC version as well as the VCL one, just for this (if so,
>it's not going to happen)? >>
>
>Yes, that would be the case.  We include a 20% discount for
>cross-upgrades, however, so the DAC version would cost you $223.20 US.  
>Considering that you're getting a native .NET local engine that runs on
>.NET 2.0 or higher and CF 2.0 or higher, along with an ODBC driver, all
>with royalty-free distribution, we consider it a good bargain.


I agree with you in that I'd get a lot for the money, but for us I'd only
use it for the CF app to replicate with the desktop. I currently use the
CF SQL Server and populate with everything from the desktop by using
RemObjects to pass the data records, which is slow so I thought it might
be quicker to use replication, so the cost for us comes down to whether
the extra plus the time it'd take would be worth spending.


--
Jeremy Knowles

One more question. In terms of replication and the store, can I extract
the backup file from the (in your excellent example) Salesman's laptop and
use my own mechanism to send it to Head Office, and similar for the
reverse file?

I'd want to create a binary file and have RemObjects transfer it to HQ.


Thanks
--
Jeremy Knowles

Jeremy


>But having read some more (you could use a page - or a more prominent link
>if there is already one- to show what is different between the C/S and
>standard versions),

AFAIK the principle difference is the fact that you get source and can rebuild the server to allow more than the 5 logins (connected sessions) that come as standard with DBISAM and ElevateDB

>if I am wanting to use replication, does that mean I'd
>have to use the C/S version? The replication and triggers are the only
>things that are making me consider the upgrade.

Originally that (I seem to remember) was going to be Tim's approach for replication but then he came up with stores. Now both triggers and replication work in f/s mode (triggers always have).

The primary difference for replication is that in f/s you have to provide the transport layer outside of ElevateDB so

>One more question. In terms of replication and the store, can I extract
>the backup file from the (in your excellent example) Salesman's laptop and
>use my own mechanism to send it to Head Office, and similar for the
>reverse file?

In f/s its mandatory, in c/s its optional* .

Roy Lambert [Team Elevate]

* unless Tim has made a complete lashup of the transport**


** if he's done that the whole c/s thing would be a nightmare and he'd have customers chartering a 747 to get there and string him up <vbg>

Jeremy,

<< But having read some more (you could use a page - or a more prominent
link if there is already one- to show what is different between the C/S and
standard versions), if I am wanting to use replication, does that mean I'd
have to use the C/S version? >>

Not necessarily.  The replication works with all versions of EDB.  However,
using remote stores requires that you at least have an EDB Server on the
other end, but we also include a 5-session version of the EDB Server with
all non-C/S versions of EDB.

<< I agree with you in that I'd get a lot for the money, but for us I'd only
use it for the CF app to replicate with the desktop. I currently use the CF
SQL Server and populate with everything from the desktop by using RemObjects
to pass the data records, which is slow so I thought it might be quicker to
use replication, so the cost for us comes down to whether the extra plus the
time it'd take would be worth spending. >>

I understand.   If it makes any difference, we also have a nice
bi-directional cursor in the EDB data provider that works great with CF and
is very quick (and easier to use than the SQLServerCE bi-directional
cursor).  It works very much like the TEDBQuery and allows you to Locate and
use filters, as well as insert, edit, and delete rows in the cursor.

--
Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com

Jeremy,

<< One more question. In terms of replication and the store, can I extract
the backup file from the (in your excellent example) Salesman's laptop and
use my own mechanism to send it to Head Office, and similar for the reverse
file? >>

Absolutely.  You could send the files via email if you wanted to, or put it
on a flash drive and sneaker-net it over to a different machine.

<< I'd want to create a binary file and have RemObjects transfer it to HQ.
>>

Sure, that would work.

--
Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com

Roy,

<< * unless Tim has made a complete lashup of the transport**

** if he's done that the whole c/s thing would be a nightmare and he'd have
customers chartering a 747 to get there and string him up <vbg> >>

No, you're right in both instances - the Remote stores are what provide the
transport in EDB, and require an EDB Server on the other end.  Apart from
that, there is no difference between the local and C/S versions of EDB in
relation to stores and replication.

--
Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com