Dear David,
> David maybe you are misunderstanding my post.
>>No, I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, which you gruesomely thrown back in my face.
I have nothing against you but it's seems to me that somebody is trying to turns fatcs into opinions. I'm speaking about proved facts.
SR_MGMNTLOCKS was created to simulate locks but was abandoned.
Thus Dbrlock() problem for multiple records locks was well known but it is not documented.
Moreover I posted my problem in December and it tooks 4 (four!) month to xHarbour staff to give me an answer! These area facts.
It is fundamental to know these facts BEFORE you buy the product!
These facts are costing us a lot of time and money.
If we had got these information before, we would be able to:
- choose if buy or not the product;
- prepare a different offer for our customer;
- set a different time frame for the porting of our software;
- choose another product;
>I understand you are incensed. I understand you have spent lots of time finding out how and >where ANSI SQL does not behave like you could program DBFCDX before. And no need for me >to weigh in on documentation yet again.
We are using SQL since 1995 and we know how it works.
We are incensed because we are spending time in:
- Discover what is not working due to bugs in SQLRDD
- find a workaround
- restore data lost
> Clipper and its variants tend to ignore some faults, and are loosely typed. Which means you have > to know what you are doing.
The problem we are facing are not Clipper faults. Are SQLRDD faults.
> David, I have bought a product that doesn't do what the producer say it should do.
>> False, I think.
Let's take a look at OTC.pl web site. They explains how lock mechanism works so one can choose. I haven't looked at SAP (formerly SYBASE formerly EXTENDED SYSTEMS) ADS but maybe somebody here knows these products and can tell us if they are hiding lost functionalities in their pre-sale informations.
> I'm documenting the product. Who pays for my time?
>> Who pays for *my* time? I have put months into responding and helping people here. I don't >> get paid to to this, I do this for the good of the community. The community helped me when I >> needed help.
There is a difference between an open source project and a product sold. When we choosed to pay for SQLRDD we choosed to save our time and to buy an out-of-the-box solution.
>> They have sold more than 1 of these SQLRDD packages. I cannot believe you are the only one >> that did not have to discover that you can make SQL fail in the eyes of your customer (due to
>> speed), because you treat it like DBFCDX. You will be "justified" in claiming it is not your
>> fault, but is that Truth?
The problem is that we knew that we have to modify some part of our code for performance reasons, but we are spending the time that we forecasted for this scope to solve problems cause by bugs in SQLRDD.
>>Ultimately, you have stated a problem. Others have supplied the workarounds or answers. Any >>other communications may have been nice, may have been to voice anger, but none affect the >>posterity *I* serve. How much time did you spend documenting the "problem"? That is the >>only "payable" time that counts in this context. The many answers you receive are also >>"payable". Surely you have helped others with problems here? What is your payment then?
We spent more than a week to:
- log the system in order to understand what was going wrong;
- recover data loss
- create a first workaround
- document with a sample that dbrunlock was not working
Than we spent another week to:
- log the system again (and discover that the xHarbour log system is not concurrency safe)
- recover data loss
- create a new workaround
- document with a sample that recno() after an append can change before the dbrunlock() (And I'm still wondering why, since identity in T_SQL does not change even if a rollback is executed)
Than we spent about 1 day to discover that dbsetfilter() does not work with characters fields and to discover that SR_Setfilter() does not work with conditional indexes (Indexes with FOR clause) and to document it with a sample.
Than we spent another day with the last bug posted in the group.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.xharbour/PGAFxO5PZVM
Then we spent another couple of days with two other bugs but we are still unable to reproduce the problem in a simple code sample. (and by the way why should I go on with sample code if they don't fix the bugs?)
Obviously I don't want to be paid for this work, but it would be nice that somebody at xHarbour tell me "thank you". Instead, they wrote to me:
"If up to 50% of your code looks like the samples you shared in your last posts, you have a bigger problem and you should consider to rewrite 100%."
or
"It seems to me that you should take a little time to learn and understand SQL, than maybe, just maybe, you will understand what I mean..."
And I paid for this service 995 dollars! And I was willing to subscribe the support service!