Re: replacing dbm_* with dba_*

On Sun, Jun 20, 1999 at 10:34:42AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Sascha Schumann wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jun 20, 1999 at 10:26:55AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > Jim Winstead wrote: > > > > > > > > Is there any reason we couldn't replace the dbm_* functions with > > > > the new dba_* stuff? Seems silly to keep both around when the > > > > dba_* stuff looks like a superset of the dbm_* stuff to me. > > > > > > > > > > Are the docs for the dba_ stuff available? > > > > > > > Yes. Look at the documentation. > > > > Yeah. Just did :) > > The one thing I seem to recall (I'll check later today and tomorrow) > is that dba_open did not support the 'c' open (r/w but no truncate > if the file exists) 'w'. Please look at the documentation. 'r' - read 'w' - read/write 'n' - truncate, read/write > and ./configure didn't correctly determine when using db1.x and > not db2.x. We don't support db1 (if you mean Sleepycat's DB1.xx) > Also, when using ndbm as implemented by db, that was broken > too. Haven't tried for several weeks so that may be fixed. Ah, we don't support ndbm through the DB2 library. It's only source code compatible, so the historic interfaces supported by the DB2 library cannot read databases written by their original implementations. -- Regards, Sascha Schumann Consultant