URGENT - ADS not reading DBFCDX files correctly
in [Visual Objects]
|
Prev: OwnerDraw ListView
Next: SO Service Client V1.4.0
From: Dave Francis on 25 May 2010 09:56 On 25 May, 14:33, Nick Friend <nicktek...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > Thanks Dave. I think I've tried every possible way of using SetAnsi, > SetCollation etc., but the only way to avoid it seems to be to avoid > using the CopyDB method. > > It's probably something very simple, but I just don't have the time to > sit and go through it calmly as we have a client going hysterical, so > I've done a quick manual fix to get round the immediate problem. > > By the way I've also found that the SetRelation that I referred to > before is definitely causing problems with ADS. I've had to do a bit > of emergency reprogramming to remove it from our code and do direct > seeks instead. Having done that, things work ok. Have you ever had > those sorts of issues? > > Nick > Nick, Good to hear you're nailing it. Is the DBCopy using DBFCDX? Mike Bertenshaw once said to me re ADS "Never mix RDDs". There must be something about the way he said it, because I've always followed it to the letter. re SetRelation - we haven't used it for years. Our relationships are complex and it was originally too slow for us. Dave Francis > On 25 May, 13:31, Dave Francis <suilvenassocia...(a)googlemail.com> > wrote: > > > Nick, > > > MS made ansi sequence changes between XP and Vista (perhaps to W7 > > too). Could that be a factor? Or, perhaps, the language settings on > > the respective machines? > > > HTH > > > Dave Francis > >
From: Jean-Pierre Maertens on 25 May 2010 10:14 Hello Nick, Very strange. Are you sure not to use SetSelectiveRelation ? I noticed that went wrong years ago and since then I used OrderTopScope and OrderBottomScope to define a scope in a detail-server. Not having any problems with ADS, touching wood ;-) Nick Friend schreef : > We've been working to get our DBFCDX application working under ADS to > be > able to use replication. Everything appeared to be fine, but now with > our > first live install, we've noticed that we're getting some horrifying > effects.... We hadn't spotted this in testing as it's not apparent at > first > sight. > > In brief, files read through the ADS RDDs are not being accessed > correctly. > It's a little difficult to describe, but for example one calculation > routine > goes to a main DBF where details of an activity are stored, then off > to a > detail DBF to search on an index and total some values of individual > components used in the activity. Using ADS we get back wrong values, > with > some of the records in the detail DBF simply missed. If we open the > same > tables with the old version of our app using DBFCDX, everything is > fine. > > This is being accessed through a data dictionary in ADS. > > I've tried deleting CDXs (the files have auto-create set in the > dictionary), > but it makes no difference. > > It definitely seems to be index related, as I've also noticed that if > I edit > one of the detail records (in our client app) in the ADS version, it > quite > often throws up an error that one of the components hasn't been found, > I do > a refresh by moving to the next record, then back, and the "missing" > component reappears. > > The index expressions being used are purely numeric. > > Anyone got any idea what the hell is going on. > > TIA > > Nick Friend -- Jean-Pierre Maertens
From: Nick Friend on 25 May 2010 10:35 Jean-Pierre Definitely SetRelation... I'd had to double check because the affected code was VERY old. But it's code that's operated without fault in Clipper, then with some tweaks into VO1, and since then virtually unchanged... so at least 20 years old. Good to hear that you have no problems with ADS... we've made a pretty heavy commitment to move into ADS for replication, and of course there are always initial problems whilst you get used to something new. But it makes me nervous even though I know it's part of the process, so it's good to hear something positive! Just out of interest, as an ADS user, have you had any experience with this other issue I'm sometimes getting? When the user changes from one work directory to another (and so the code disconnects from one data dictionary and connects to another one), we're getting an occasional error from ADS that the handle is not valid when we try to open the first tables, even though all the error checking has validated the connection. Very odd. And it's not consistent, just occasionally. Nick On 25 May, 15:14, Jean-Pierre Maertens <jean- pierre.GEENSPAMmaert...(a)bruggeGEENSPAM.be> wrote: > Hello Nick, > > Very strange. Are you sure not to use SetSelectiveRelation ? I > noticed that went wrong years ago and since then I used OrderTopScope > and OrderBottomScope to define a scope in a detail-server. > > Not having any problems with ADS, touching wood ;-) >
From: Jean-Pierre Maertens on 25 May 2010 11:23 Nick, I have never worked with several data dictionnaries in one program. Can you explain why you are doing this ? Several years in accounting program ? greetings, > Jean-Pierre > > Definitely SetRelation... I'd had to double check because the affected > code was VERY old. But it's code that's operated without fault in > Clipper, then with some tweaks into VO1, and since then virtually > unchanged... so at least 20 years old. > > Good to hear that you have no problems with ADS... we've made a pretty > heavy commitment to move into ADS for replication, and of course there > are always initial problems whilst you get used to something new. But > it makes me nervous even though I know it's part of the process, so > it's good to hear something positive! > > Just out of interest, as an ADS user, have you had any experience with > this other issue I'm sometimes getting? When the user changes from one > work directory to another (and so the code disconnects from one data > dictionary and connects to another one), we're getting an occasional > error from ADS that the handle is not valid when we try to open the > first tables, even though all the error checking has validated the > connection. > > Very odd. And it's not consistent, just occasionally. > > Nick > -- Jean-Pierre Maertens
From: Nick Friend on 25 May 2010 11:36
It's a construction project management system. The users can choose to keep all their projects in a single database, or have a separate one for each project. Most prefer to keep them separate. So of course each one has it's own dictionary and the users need to be able to move between projects. We've also started to use replication (which was the whole point of moving to ADS), so each project has a mirrored database in the building site, with ADS replicating changes between office and site and vice-versa. Nick On 25 May, 16:23, Jean-Pierre Maertens <jean- pierre.GEENSPAMmaert...(a)bruggeGEENSPAM.be> wrote: > Nick, > > I have never worked with several data dictionnaries in one program. > Can you explain why you are doing this ? Several years in accounting > program ? > > greetings, > |