I certainly did not intend the 'attitude' that you sensed. I do appreciate their response but my point was that this is something that was of great benefit in the past versions that somehow got lost in the upgrades. I realize that thanks should have been expressed and apologize for not doing so the first time around. And again I ask, is this something that should be considered for the enhancement list to make the product even better?? (or in this case, as good as it used to be). Fair question??
>>> "ghbaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1/15/2008 9:31 AM >>> Clayton, Let me request that you adjust your attitude about this entire problem. You just received two replies from Jeff Watson and Buddy Walker, who responded with in just a very short time suggesting work arounds for your problem and you re-sponded with a nasty reply instead of thanking them for rendering assistance. I have been an R:Base developer since 1982....Went into retirement a few years back and after all of the changes and new tools from RBTI, have been back into developing for two years. These new versions and tools are definitely not "Your fathers old Oldsmobile". This is an entirely new product that I consider fantastic to work with, a great advance over the original R:BASE, and other competing products of the prior days and it changes weekly with new additions and enhancements. My product is not as complicated as many of those by developers that I have gotten to know in these past two years ( but, I know that I can call on them for and will get assistance and advice as you have gotten.) But, since one of my initial procedures is loading data via gateway to initially load a new database and then updating the data periodically, I use very much the same procedure with temp tables that they have outlined and then adjust the values with written code as they suggest. In developing this code, I relied on advice from experienced developers and then rounded it out myself through experimentation trial and error. It would be impossible for RBTI to anticipate the variations in advance in all of the database tables that come down the pike for loading. Should RBTI or anyone else be able to project the uncountable probabibilities that could occur, our services would not be needed as developers. In short, be thankful that you have this group of developers, who will take their time and talent to assist you and try experimenting with use of humility. appreciate so much that they have aided me in the past. George Baker ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clayton ANDERSON" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "RBASE-L Mailing List" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:14 AM Subject: [RBASE-L] - RE: Importing data using Gateway So turn off the PC brain and trust the human to get it right?? Not much of a solution. Does this need to be sent to the request for enhancement group?? >>> "Jeffrey M. Watson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1/15/2008 7:25 AM >>> >>> I have noticed the same behaviour, but what you can do is load your data to a temporary table with no rules and keys. once it is loaded you can 'clean' the data as needed, and append / select+insert it into the desired table. Hope this helps. -Jeff Jeff Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tube Methods, Inc. 610-279-7700 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clayton ANDERSON Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:20 AM To: RBASE-L Mailing List Subject: [RBASE-L] - Importing data using Gateway The old RBase (DOS 4.5) handled exceptions during data importing with the Gateway and placed the exceptions into a except.dat file. Version 7.6 seems to just stop when coming across and rule violation. Any way to have it continue and/or handle exceptions??
