Jump to content

Talk:Btrieve

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleBtrieve is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 29, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
April 13, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Untitled

[edit]

Sources:

PSQL Is Not Btrieve

[edit]

The should not be merged. Btrieve morphed into the MKDE, and PSQL is buil on top of Btrieve. Yes, Pervasive wants to be perceived as an SQL RDBMS vendor, but they're pretty much not. RSzoc 13:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DOS Version of Btrieve

[edit]

I don't know where the author got the notion that the DOS version allowed up to 5 concurrent users... That simply is not true. At one point, I had 47 applications, all using Btrieve, and about 80 simultaneous concurrent users. No problems. Going to the Netware NLM version when Btrieve 6.15 became available allowed me to have about 250 simultaneous users. RSzoc 13:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Last Sentence of Softcraft Years

[edit]

The article states that Xtrieve used a data dictionary to "enforce relational database rules". That's not true. The data dictionary was developed so that you could have a standard user interface to Btrieve files.

As designed, you create a Btrieve file by specifying the maximum record lenth, the number and data type of indexes, and so on. You never ever have to specify in dividual fields, because Btrieve manipulates records (or more accurately, pages, which can contain one of more records, depending on record size and page size), and doesn't really care about individual fields.

Softcraft developed DDFs so that a programmer could specify the actual field layout and use Xtrieve to manipulate data at the field/column level, and not the record level. RSzoc 12:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture Description Is Flawed

[edit]

Rather than starting off with what Btrieve is not, I would start off with what it is:

Btrieve is an Indexed Sequential Access Method file manager with transaction processing for fault tolerance.

That's really what it is.

The discussion of the architecture is based on incorrect concepts and thus flawed. The author makes a distinction between the Microkernel (MKDE) and Btrieve that does not exist.

Btrieve is the MKDE and the MKDE is Btrieve. They are one and the same (except for the software interface between an application program and Btrieve/MKDE). In other words, if you take away Btrieve from the graphic in this section, you take away the MKDE.

The architecture is more as follows:

  • Lowest level: MKDE needs to talk to the host operating system in order to
 do any record manipulation.
  • MKDE creates Btrieve files, adds, inserts, updates, deletes records. In versions prior to 6.15, the MKDE was called "Btrieve".
  • PSQL is built on top of Btrieve. All the SQL statements passed to PSQL are parsed by the PSQL engine, and broken down to individual MKDE/Btrieve calls. The results are then passed by Btrieve/MKDE back to PSQL.

RSzoc 12:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Software Interface Language

[edit]

The first paragraph states that with version 6.15, Btrieve was modularized and "plugged into the software interface named the Microkernel... ". This is an incorrect use of the term "software interface" here.

The Microkernel Database Engine (MKDE) is the actual database engine : It does the work of getting records, inserting/updating records, and so on. That's what engine usually means. A programmer accessed btrieve via the software interface, which was merely a call to issue Interrupt 0x7B, with an argument list in certain registers. Setting up the arguments and calling the interrupt is the software interface.

If you used the Netware NLM version of btrieve, the software interface stayed the same: the program still called Interrupt 0x7B, but the engine is now working directory on/in the Novell server. RSzoc 12:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Client-based

[edit]

The "Client-based" section is confusing. There are several grammatical constructs that are ill-formed, however, I'm not sure enough about the intended meaning to fix it myself. Is this paragraph trying to describe the calling sequence shown in the illustration to the right? As it stands, the text describes a very different calling sequence from what is portrayed in the illustration.

Perhaps one of the original authors could clarify the intent?

— DV 09:42, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback David, it's much appreciated! I've fixed up that section and it should be a lot more readable and accurate now. I've also made a reference to where I got the information, should anyone want to check my facts! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From WP:FAC

[edit]

I've managed to expand this considerably (see [2]). I've got a bit more to go, especially with the Pervasive line of products, but otherwise its fully complete. Do we have any Btrieve/Pervasive/Novell btrieve programmers/sys admins/users who would be able to fact check or help me expand this article? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:52, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • The lead section still needs some work. I attempted to tell what it is, but it needs to be more clear. Part of the problem is that it is not called Btrieve as it is marketed today, so the is the article about a historical or current product? That confusion never really seems answered in the article and needs to be especially carefully done in the intro. - Taxman 15:29, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks Taxman :) I'll update this soon, I just need to add more info to the main body of the article. Then I'll get the lead section sorted. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • responding your message on my talk page, yes that is much better. Still needs a bit more to clearly answer the problem I noted above. The product is not called Btrieve now, but that is still the title. Is it still successful? Is the article going to cover more about the current product or no? The article needs to be clear about that second point and the reason why. - Taxman 23:59, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
        • The article is going to cover Pervasive.SQL 7 & Pervasive.SQL 8, but I've decided to only note the Btrieve transaction database component (read legacy, non-relational database backend). As stated earlier in the article it plugs into the MKDE (the other module is Scalable SQL, their relational database product). Hence the modular architecture. Ah. That means that I need to mention the modular architecture in the lead section and how Btrieve is now only one component of their general product. So I'll edit this accordingly. I was thinking of transcluding the history section and using it for other articles. What do people think of this idea? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:32, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The beginning definitely needs rewording. If I knew more about this subject I might be able to help. The first two sentences somehow need to be combined into one, and the last two sentences need to be much clearer and more concise. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 talk]] 17:14, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • OK, I've fixed the lead section. Should be a lot better now! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Well the lead is a lot better and the article is shaping up nicely. It is now beyond my knowledge of the area to comment much. - Taxman 17:56, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Missing version

[edit]

There was a version known as "Btrieve for Xenix". It dates from before Xenix was renamed to Unix, near the same time as the Btrieve for Netware version. It was client-server based, and used message queues for communication. --David Garfield 04:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question

[edit]

Can't we just replace the entire article with the observation "Pervasive.SQL is like SQL Server except retarded"?. Sorry, sorry, I've just been frustrated arguing with version 8 --Surturz 03:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not :-) Ta bu shi da yu 08:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

[edit]

If Pervasive PSQL is a rename of Btrieve, should the two articles be merged?--NapoliRoma 17:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Novell Logo.png

[edit]

Image:Novell Logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:Pervasive logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:W32mkset.PNG Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:W32mkset.PNG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 24 November 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Btrieve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Btrieve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Btrieve&oldid=1206464118"