I meant it doesn't stop you
_____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of paultsho Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2008 3:17 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [amibroker] auto file synchronizers (was Re: Extremely tired of this.) i have 4 computers running ab, one of which is a laptop. file based synchronistion is more than adequate. i make sure all the necessary files are synced before undocking. when i get back with the changes, i just resync again. it is no different than usind word. unidirectional means you cant update 2 copies of the same file separately. but it does stop you from taking your laptop to your local coffee shop to work on AB --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com, "progster01" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Response to Paul Ho: > > Though I agree with your comment about the difficulty and relative > pointlessness of "Real time multiple computer data synchronization" > for AB (ala banking software), that is not what I was talking about at > all. > > OTOH, to require that the "propagation of updates is kept > unidirectional" is EXACTLY the problem. > > I am very affected by it. I'm sure others are too. I feel confident > in speculating that this limitation is an artifact of the history of > AB's development. IOW, this issue simply wasn't in the forefront of > thinking at the point where decisions were made that created the > unidirectionality. (As an aside, computers used to be much more > expensive, and people didn't often used to have 2 or more of them.) > > These days, most tools do not have this limitation. The ones that > don't have it are MUCH easier to work with and be productive with, > insofar as operating with multiple computers is concerned. > > Do you ever take a laptop with you somewhere and write code or create > a workspace while you are away? Do you ever have a hardware or > software failure that puts the "primary" machine out of commission for > a period of time? Do you ever run large-scale optimizations that make > the "primary" machine inconvenient or impossible to use for some > period of time? Do you ever have AB online on a "primary" machine and > want to do some coding or new workspace layout on a different machine? > > If so, you now have a time-wasting, productivity destroying > synchronization problem to solve - a problem that wouldn't be there if > the software architecture did not play poorly with commonly used > multi-machine file sync techniques. > > The problem is the whole notion of a "primary" machine. IMO, there is > no good reason why one AB installation should be favored over others. > The user should be able to work on any number of installations and > resync them easily, with standard tools. > > This is a problem that does not have to exist. It could be eliminated > at the source (with some effort and architectural adjustment to be > sure), and I think that change would be HIGHLY BENEFICIAL for the > platform and for the users of it. > > (I will respond to TJ in a separate message). > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com, "Paul Ho" <paultsho@> wrote: > > > > Totally disagree with that. > > I believe AB has given us small time traders an edge and I > personally dont > > want real time multiple computer data synchronation. > > because firstly it is both expensive and time consuming to > implement, and > > usually comes with performance penalty. Just look at how long and > > troublesome banking software take to implement. Secondly, I am happy > that AB > > is staying out of large Coporates radar screen. Like TJ said, the > current > > architecture is completely workable if I understand how to copy > files over > > and that propagation of updates is kept unidirectional. It is more than > > capable to running multiple instances and on multiple machines. I do > however > > support running large scale optimization over multiple machines. > > The problems mentioned above exist because people dont follow > instructions > > or know what the instructions are. Creating complex synchronisation > regime > > will create another set of and larger problems for those who still dont > > follow instructions. > > > > > > _____ > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com] > On Behalf > > Of progster01 > > Sent: Saturday, 12 January 2008 12:35 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com > > Subject: SV: [amibroker] auto file synchronizers (was Re: Extremely > tired of > > this.) > > > > > > > > > > > If AB is running on one computer using such sharing it is fine. > > > But if you run multiple instances simultaneously > > > on multiple machines and you are using this sharing the > > > results will be unpredictable. > > > > Not to be too cute, but who uses just one computer anymore ... > > > > TJ, I appreciate your direct acknowlegement of this situation. It's > > something that people should know about in advance (if possible) of > > assuming/attempting otherwise. > > > > I sincerely hope that an appropriately high priority will be given to > > enhancing the AB architecture so that creational work done on different > > machines at different times (charts made, code written, layouts created, > > etc. etc.) can be easily cr0ss-copied to be available identically on > > each machine, with no problems being created thereby. > > >
